No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2020-01-13Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Agenda KITCHENS=:R Monday, January 13, 2020 Office of the City Clerk 4:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. Kitchener City Hall 200 King St. W. - 2nd Floor Council Chamber Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Page 1 Chair - Councillor S. Marsh Vice -Chair - Councillor P. Singh 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. • None. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of 5 minutes. • None at this time. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act (4:00 p.m. advertised start time) This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act. If a person or public body that would otherwise have an ability to appeal a decision of the City of Kitchener to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, but the person or public body does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Kitchener before the by-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. Discussion Items 1. DSD -20-001 - Official Plan Amendment - OP19/001/B/GS - Zoning By-law Amendment - ZBA19/001/B/GS - 169 Borden Inc., Joseph Castello & Laurie Castello - 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North (Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter) 2. DSD -20-002 - Official Plan Amendment - OP15/05/F/GS - Zoning By-law Amendment - ZC15/015/F/GS - Milan Kovacevic, Dean Kovacevic & Keystone Property Developments Inc. - 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road (Staff will provide a 10 minute presentation on this matter) Siobhan Delaney Committee Administrator (90 min) (90 min) ** 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 ** Staff Report Development Services Department REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: January 13, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Della Ross, Interim Director of Planner PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 x 7070 WARD INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: November 27, 2019 REPORT NO.: DSD -20-001 J _� it www.kitchener.ca SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment Application OP1 9/001 /B/GS Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA19/001/B/GS 169 Borden Inc., Joseph Castello, & Laurie Castello 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North N G R� G �PJ�N Subject�C,� �o�p6 Area 02a �L s�� e ,yyPs OSP Location Map: Subject Properties RECOMMENDATION: A. That Official Plan Amendment Application OP19/001/B/GS for 169 Borden Inc., Joseph Castello, & Laurie Castello requesting a change in designation from Low Rise Residential and Institutional to Medium Rise Residential with Site Specific Policy Area 51 to permit a six storey multiple dwelling development on the parcel of land specified *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1- 1 and illustrated on Schedule `A', be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -20-001 as Appendix `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; AND B. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA19/001/B/GS for 169 Borden Inc., Joseph Castello, & Laurie Castello requesting a change from Residential Six (R-6) and Neighbourhood Institutional (INS -1) to Residential Eight with Special Regulation Provision 753R for the parcels of land specified and illustrated on Map No. 1, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" dated November 27, 2019, attached to Report DSD -20-001 as Appendix "B", and receive three readings once By- law 2019-51 (CRoZBy Stage 1) is deemed to be in effect, either in whole or in part, AND C. 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 ZBA19/001/B/GS, AND FURTHER D. That the Urban Design Brief dated September 2019, prepared by MHBC Planning for Vive Development Corporation, and attached to Report DSD -20-001 as Appendix "C", be adopted, and that staff be directed to apply the Urban Design Brief through the Site Plan Approval process. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Planning staff is recommending approval of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new six storey multiple dwelling residential building. The subject lands are made up of two properties, being 155 and 169 Borden Avenue North. A Site Specific Policy Area 51 and Special Use Regulation Provision 753R are proposed to further regulate the proposed development to ensure that the ultimate development is consistent with the revised development concept prepared by the applicant as part of the application process. Planning staff support the redesignation of 169 Borden Avenue from Institutional to Medium Rise Residential, in consideration of the criteria outlined in the Official Plan. The revised development concept is the result of changes to the original proposal, including reducing the height by 1 storey and establishing front, side, and rear yard setbacks that align with the Mid -Rise Buildings Urban Design Guidelines, among others. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would bring the lands identified as 169 Borden Avenue back into Zoning By-law 85-1 as residential zones have not been applied to properties in Zoning By-law 2019-051 (CRoZBy). 1:74107:45 The subject lands are made up of two properties, being 155 and 169 Borden Avenue North. The property at 155 Borden Avenue is currently developed with a single detached dwelling and 169 Borden Avenue North is currently vacant. The properties are approximately 0.691 hectares (1.707 acres) which front onto Borden Street North and are surrounded with existing residential properties on all other sides. The lands are situated in the middle of a block formed by Borden Avenue North, Weber Street East, and East Avenue. The initial application was circulated in May 2019 and a Neighbourhood Information Meeting was held on June 11, 2019. Staff also met with some property owners at their request. Staff have received a revised development concept in response to public input, working meetings, and discussions with internal staff. The Official Plan Amendment application requests to change the land use designation of 169 Borden Avenue North from Institutional to Medium Rise Residential and the land use designation of 155 Borden Avenue North was proposed to change from Low Rise Residential to Medium Rise Residential. The 1-2 Zoning By-law Amendment Application requested to change both the zoning of 155 Borden Avenue North from Residential Six (R-6) and the zoning of 169 Borden Avenue North from Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (1-1) with Special Regulation Provisions 76 and 93 to Residential Eight (R-8) with a Special Provision. Provincial, Regional, and City planning policy provide guidance that must be considered when evaluating changes in land use permissions as discussed below. Planning Analysis: Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 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 build strong healthy communities. The PPS is supportive of efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term, communities that accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses, promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, and promoting development and land use patterns that conserve biodiversity and consider the impacts of a changing climate. Further, the PPS directs the development of new housing to locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are orwill be available to support current and projected needs and promotes densities for new housing which efficiently uses land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities. The plan also supports the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed. The Provincial government is undertaking consultations on proposed changes to the PPS along with the Growth Plan and Planning Act. At this time, the proposed changes to the PPS relate to encouraging the development of an increased mix and supply of housing, protecting the environment and public safety, reducing barriers and costs for development and to provide greater predictability, to support rural, northern and Indigenous communities, to support the economy and jobs, and to maintain protections for the Greenbelt. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed applications will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a medium rise residential use that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make use of the existing infrastructure. 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 intensification on the subject lands. Planning staff is 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, 2019 (Growth Plan) Part of the Vision of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) is to have sufficient housing supply that reflects market demand and what is needed in local communities. Two of the Guiding Principles of the Growth Plan are to prioritize intensification and higher densities in strategic growth areas to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability and to support a range and mix of housing options, including second units and affordable housing, to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households. To support the achievement of complete communities, 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 will require a minimum of 50 per cent of all residential development occurring annually within the Region of Waterloo to be within the delineated Built -Up Area. Municipalities must support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets by identifying a diverse range and mix 1-3 of housing options and densities, including second units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan. The development of the subject lands with a more intense residential use within the City's delineated Built -Up Area, represent intensification and will help the City to meet density targets. Community Areas are planned to accommodate additional housing opportunities that will make use of existing infrastructure and support the viability of existing transit. Housing policies of the Growth Plan support the development of a range and mix of housing options that serves the needs of a variety of household sizes, incomes and ages. The proposed development includes 166 one and two bedroom units, with 20% VistiAble units. Regional Official Plan (ROP) Urban Area policies in the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. This area contains the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support major growth, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply systems and municipal wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. It is also well - served by the existing Regional transit system. For these reasons, lands within the Urban Area have the greatest capacity to accommodate growth and serve as the primary focus for employment, housing, cultural and recreational opportunities in the region. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. Regional Planning staff have no objections to the proposed applications and provided comments (Appendix "D") that will be taken under advisement for future development applications. Recommended Official Plan Amendment Planning staff are recommending to change both the land use designation of 169 Borden Avenue North from Institutional, and to change the land use designation of 155 Borden Avenue North from Low Rise Residential, to Medium Rise Residential with Site Specific Policy Area 51. Medium Rise Residential would permit a medium rise multiple dwelling, and Site Specific Area Policy 51 policy would limit the maximum height to 6 storeys and 19.0 metres. City of Kitchener Official Plan The vision of the new Official Plan states "Togetherwe will build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community contributing to an exceptional quality of life." A complete community creates and provides access to a mix of land uses including a full range and mix of housing types. A complete community also supports the use of public transit and active transportation, enabling residents to meet most of their daily needs within a short distance of their homes. Planning for a complete community will aid in reducing the cost of infrastructure and servicing, encourage the use of public transit and active modes of transportation, promote social interaction, and foster a sense of community. Urban Structure The lands are identified as a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the Official Plan. MTSAs are designated in the Regional Official Plan, are identified on Map 2 of the 2014 Official Plan, and are a conceptual representation of the area of a ten minute walking radius centered around the location of Rapid Transit Station Stops. 1-4 The Official Plan provides direction for detailed station area planning exercises, which have been completed for Central, Midtown and Rockway stations areas. The City is reviewing and amending several Secondary Plans to implement these Station Area Plans, including the King Street East Secondary Plan. The easterly boundary of the King Street East Secondary Plan is Weber Street East and as a result, no land use changes are proposed for the subject lands as part of that work program. The conceptual MTSA boundary in the Official Plan is proposed to be amended to align with the easterly boundary of the King Street East Secondary Plan. As such, the proposed Urban Structure proposed for the subject lands is Community Area. 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. Lands within Community Areas may be designated as Low Rise Residential, Medium Rise Residential, High Rise Residential, Open Space, Institutional and/or Major Infrastructure and Utilities. Limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in accordance with the applicable land use designation and the Urban Design Policies in the Official Plan. The proposed development must be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context. Housing The Official Plan Supports 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 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. The Official Plan contains policies to consider when a site-specific zoning regulation is proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands. The overall impact of the special zoning regulations will be reviewed by the City to ensure; — That any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood, — That new buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties, and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy, and — That the lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. The impact of each special zoning regulation must be reviewed prior to formulating a recommendation to ensure that a deficiency in the one zoning requirement does not compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning deficiencies. Medium Rise Residential Land Use Designation The Medium Rise Residential land use designation is applied to lands that are planned to accommodate a range of medium density housing types including townhouse dwellings in a cluster development, multiple dwellings and special needs housing. A minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 will apply to all development and redevelopment. No building will exceed 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is the lesser, at the highest grade elevation. The predominant land use within the Medium Rise Residential land use designation will be multiple residential but it is intended that complementary non-residential land uses may be permitted to locate within this land use designation subject to any locational criteria and the appropriate zoning being in place. 1-5 Urban Design The City is committed to achieving a high standard of urban design, architecture and place -making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. Urban design is a vital component of city planning and 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. Urban Design policies in the new Official Plan support creating visually distinctive and identifiable places, structures and spaces that contribute to a strong sense of place and community pride, a distinct character and community focal points that promote and recognize excellence and innovation in architecture, urban design, sustainable building design and landscape design. The City will require high quality urban design in the review of all development applications through the implementation of the policies of the new Official Plan and the City's Urban Design Manual. Institutional Land Redesignation The lands addressed as 169 Borden Avenue North are currently designated as Institutional in the Official Plan. Policy 15.D.7.4 permits the City to consider the redesignation of the site to an appropriate alternative land use designation only after examination of the following options for part or all of the site; • Is the use of the site for a suitable alternative institutional purpose, • Would the City wish to acquire the site or a portion of it for institutional or open space use, based on the park needs of the surrounding area, and • Would the redesignation of the site meet housing targets, particularly for special needs or affordable housing. As part of the Planning Justification Report, MHBC Planning undertook an assessment of the redesignation of the lands in consideration of Policy 15.D.7.4. In summary, the report concluded: • The subject lands do not meet all of the required criteria identified by the WRDSB and is not suitable for a school. • The size and configuration of the site could lend itself to a smaller church or place of worship. Regardless of the size and configuration of the site, it is important to note that there are several existing institutional uses in the immediate area, which support the neighbourhood, and broader community. • There are also other lands within walking distance of the site that can provide the same range of institutional uses, such as the King Street Mixed Use Corridor. • The surrounding area is very well served by existing parks, open space and recreational uses (including schools), and the City has not expressed any interest in acquiring the land for development of any of these types of uses. • The proposed development will assist the Region of Waterloo and the City with achieving housing targets, particularly through the provision of special needs housing and rental housing. Official Plan Analysis Site Specific Policy Area 51 is intended to ensure that any future building is compatible with the existing community. The proposed permissions would limit the maximum height of a proposed building by two storeys, to a maximum of 6 storeys and 19.0 metres. The proposed building is appropriate in massing and scale and is compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. The shortest portion of the building is four storeys and is adjacent to 181 Borden Avenue North which is currently developed with a single 1-6 detached dwelling. The building steps in height at the center of the site to six storeys. The six storey portion of the building has an additional 4.0 metre setback from Borden Avenue North. The westerly portion of the building steps down to five storeys, adjacent to an existing multiple dwelling that is 3.5 storeys in height. The tallest portion of the building is in the center of the site, with shorter portions stepped towards the adjacent low rise uses that front onto East Avenue. The central part of the building is a minimum of 6.0 metres from the properties fronting onto Weber Street East, which are designated and zoned to permit low rise residential uses, including multiple dwellings. The proposed setbacks are sufficient to ensure that adequate landscaping can be provided to provide screening around the entire site. The landscape buffer along the rear lot line for the properties fronting East Avenue has been increased to 2.3 metres in order to accommodate larger trees and landscape material. The underground parking garage and building have been pulled further away from the properties that front onto Weber Street East to ensure that trees and landscaping can be provided in that location as well. The side yard abutting 141-149 Borden Avenue North can accommodate low level landscaping. A visual barrier will also be required in any location where the surface parking lot is adjacent to another property. The site can function appropriately and an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area can be accommodated on site. There is sufficient green spaces on site to provide outdoor amenity areas for the future residents of the building. On-site parking is provided in an underground garage and in the surface parking lot. Planning staff accept and agree with the conclusions of the MHBC report with respect to the redesignation of 169 Borden Avenue from Institutional to Medium Rise Residential. The proposed development helps to meet annual intensification targets within the Built -Up Area. Increasing the supply of housing within walking distance to existing and planned public transportation provides a housing choice outside of the Urban Growth Centre and within a residential community. The area is well served by institutional uses and public spaces, including Knollwood Park, Sheppard Public School, Holy Cross Lutheran Church, as well as St. Anne's Roman Catholic Church and Catholic School. The City's Parks and Cemeteries Division have advised that their intention is to accept cash in lieu of land for parkland dedication contribution. The Owner has also submitted a Site Plan application for the site which reflects the proposal in the attached Urban Design Brief. Details such as lighting, landscape design and materials, amenity areas, fagades, and site layout and configuration will be carefully considered through the review of the detailed design plans and drawings. The site planning process will also include a development agreement which will ensure the long-term maintenance and upkeep of the site. Site Plan Control will be used in accordance with the Planning Act as a means of achieving a well-designed, functional, accessible, and sustainable built form. Planning staff are proposing to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in with the recommended zoning in three ways: with a special regulation provision to reduce vehicle parking, to increase bicycle stalls, and to require an on-site car share space. Kitchener Growth Management Strategy The Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS) helps to ensure that growth is managed effectively to achieve the required density and intensification targets, through a desired built form and function which will enhance the quality of life in Kitchener. The Kitchener Growth Management Plan (KGMP) is based on the principle that maximizing the use of existing infrastructure is preferred and that planning for, and implementing, intensification is a high priority. 1-7 Planning Staff's recommendation is in compliance with the KGMS and KGMP by supporting appropriate intensification that better utilizes the existing infrastructure while ensuring that any future development be compatible and complementary to the existing neighbourhood, while bringing new residents into a stable community. Zoning By-law 85-1 & Recommended Zoning By-law Amendment The Residential Eight (R-8) zone permits multiple dwellings with a FSR between 0.6 and 2.0, and a maximum height of 24.0 metres, among other regulations. Planning staff are recommending changing the zoning of 155 Borden Avenue North from Residential Six (R-6) to Residential Eight (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 753R. Secondly, it is recommended that the zoning of 169 Borden Avenue North is changed from Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (1-1) to Residential Eight (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 753R. Planning staff is recommending site-specific zoning to provide additional direction that will guide future development. Special Regulation Provision 753R applies the following site specific zoning regulations: • A maximum building height of 6 storeys or 19.0 metres. • A minimum yard abutting 181 Borden Avenue North and 435 East Avenue of 8.5 metres. • A minimum setback of 28.0 metres from 181 Borden Avenue North and 435 East Avenue for any portion of building more than 4 storeys. • A minimum yard abutting 441, 449, 455, and 459 East Avenue of 16.5 metres. • A minimum setback of 28.0 metres from 441, 449, 455, and 459 East Avenue for any portion of building more than 5 storeys. • A minimum yard abutting 141-149 Borden Avenue North of 1.5 metres. • A minimum setback of 21.0 metres from 141-149 Borden Avenue North for any portion of building more than 5 storeys. • A minimum yard abutting Borden Avenue North of 6.0 metres. • A minimum yard abutting Borden Avenue North for any building greater than five storeys of shall be 10.0 metres. • An off street parking rate of 0.85 spaces/unit. • An off street visitor parking rate of 0.1 spaces/unit. • A minimum of 1.0 secured bicycle stalls/unit. • A minimum of 6 visitor bicycle stalls/lot. • A minimum of 1 visitor car share parking space. As the Residential Eight (R-8) base zone permits multiple dwelling up to 8 storeys in height and 25 metres, a regulation is proposed to limit the building height to 6 storeys and 19.0 metres. The properties addressed as 141-149 Borden Avenue North and 328 and 330 Weber Street are zoned as Residential Seven (R-7) which also permits multiple dwelling with a maximum height of 24.0 metres. The height maximum proposed allows for the built form that is shown in the attached Urban Design Brief, and will ensure compatibility with the properties along East Avenue and Weber Street East which have a 10.5 metre maximum height. The minimum yard and the minimum stepback regulations are to ensure that the massing of the building is stepped down from the center six storey portion to the four and five storey sections. The front yard (minimum yard abutting Borden Street North) is also further regulated to require a six metre setback for the shorter portions of the building to keep in line with the established setback of the dwelling at 181 Borden Avenue North. The taller center portion of the building is setback an additional 4.0 metres (10.0 metres total) to beak up the front wall of the building, to set the additional height back further, and to allow for entry features and landscaping. 1 The proposed amending by-law includes provisions for reduced parking and increased bicycle stalls and facilities. New off-street parking rates were recently approved rates in Section 5 of the new Zoning By-law 2019-051 (CRoZBy). The parking rates for a multiple dwelling in a RES zone in the new Zoning By-law is a minimum of 1.15 spaces/unit including 0.15 spaces/unit visitor and a maximum of 1.4 spaces/unit. Additionally, under the new Zoning By-law, a minimum of 0.5 bicycle stalls/unit is required in a secured located and a minimum of 6 visitor parking spaces is required per lot. The proposed site specific parking rates are 0.85 spaces/unit inclusive of an off-street visitor parking rate of 0.1 spaces/unit. While the proposed rate is lower than the "All Other Areas" CRoZBy rate, Transportation Services staff are supportive based on the geographic location of the subject lands, access to public transportation, and the increased bicycle stalls, and the inclusion of a car share space on site. Mid -Rise Buildings Design Guidelines The City's Urban Design Manual applies to all properties within the City and there are several sections that apply to the subject lands, including City-wide design guidelines. All guidelines will be applied through the site planning stage, but the Mid -Rise Buildings Design Guidelines specifically were relied on in reviewing the appropriateness of the proposed building. A mid -rise building is any building that is between four and eight storeys. When considering the appropriate placement of building mass, the design should respond to both the existing and planned context of the area, including concentrating height and mass toward more intensive adjacent areas, and responding to the character and rhythms of low rise adjacent areas. The building should sensitively transition to surrounding urban contexts, accounting for both the existing context and the planned vision for an area. Design cues such as materials, architectural features, colours, and rhythms should be implemented from good surrounding built form. Setbacks from property lines and stepbacks from lower and upper storeys help to achieve good transitions. Mid -rise buildings are to be contemporary and not replicate existing or historical architectural styles. Mid -rise buildings are to have a human -scaled relationship to the public realm. On long narrow sites, where units face interior lot lines, the guidelines provide direction on how to calculate and evaluate the physical separation distances. When considering the maximum length and the maximum height of the proposed building, the suggested separation is 6.8 metres. The intent of the separation is largely achieved is all locations: • The minimum yard abutting 181 Borden Avenue North and 435 East Avenue is 8.5 metres. • The minimum yard abutting 441, 449, 455, and 459 East Avenue is 16.5 metres. • The minimum yard abutting the Weber Street properties is a minimum of 6.0 metres, but 6.8 metres is exceeded is most locations due to the angle of the lot line. • The minimum yard abutting 141-149 Borden Avenue North is 1.5 metres, but the distance between the closest building and the proposed building is 7.0 metres. The distance between the proposed building and the closest building addressed as 141-149 Borden, is similar to the distance between the two existing buildings on the adjacent site. The mid -rise guidelines also suggest using rear and side stepbacks for upper storeys to provide contextually appropriate transitions from mid -rise buildings to lower -rise surrounding neighbourhoods. Special regulation Provision 753R requires stepbacks for the taller portions of the building as discussed above. Mid -rise buildings are to be built with high-quality, resilient and sustainable materials. A building's material palette is to contain a variety of complementary materials, carefully detailed and articulated for proportional and visual harmony while being consistent in their architectural intent. Materials which appear monolithic, flat, or unresolved should be avoided. Where a palette contains such materials, it 1-9 is expected that options for colour, texture, patterns, finish and details (including reveals, how the material frames openings, etc) will be explored through a collaborative design process. As noted above, the City's site planning process will be used to discuss the materials and landscaping details of the proposed development. Reports, Studies and Technical Memos The following Reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: • Planning Justification Report (includes the Sustainability Statement, Parking Justification and TDM Checklist) • Urban Design Brief (includes Shadow Impact Study) • Building Elevations • Preliminary Site Plan and Underground Parking Plan • Salt Management Plan • Site Servicing Feasibility Study • Preliminary Tree Management Plan • Environmental Noise Assessment • Parking Utilization Study Deoartment and Aaencv Comments: A copy of all comments received from the commenting agencies and City departments are attached as Appendix "D". Some comments are discussed in greater detail throughout this report, but in summary, there are no outstanding concerns with the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. Additional consideration or concerns will be addressed through the site development approval process. Community Input and Staff Responses: Planning staff received written submissions which are attached as Appendixes "E". Comments were received at, and immediately following the Neighbourhood Information Meeting (NIM) held on June 11, 2019. Planning staff worked with the developer to address the community input, as well as from internal department and external commenting agencies. A revised development concept was received and is outlined in the attached Urban Design Brief. 1-10 For reference, the table below compares the initial and revised development concepts. Comparison Table: Development Concepts Building Height & Shadow Impacts & Privacy Some residents provided comments that the building should be of similar design, size, and characteristics of the single -detached dwellings in the area. The building form with the greatest height is located in the center of the site. The proposed side yards allow for a significant landscaping to buffer the entire site which will help delineate the property from adjacent land uses. The recommended zoning restricts the maximum building height to 6 storeys and 19.0 metres for the tallest portion in the center of the site, with portions of the building stepping down towards the existing residential community. The changes from the original concept to the revised concept include; • Reducing the maximum height of the building by one storey, • Pulling the taller part of the building closer to Borden Avenue by 4.0 metres, • Introducing a Landscape Buffer between the driveway and 181 Borden Avenue North, • Increasing the yard (setback) abutting the Weber Street East properties, • Decreasing the number of units from 171 to 166, • Providing visitAble dwelling units, • Adding a car share parking space, • Increasing the number of on-site bicycle stalls, and • Moving the parking access to Borden Avenue North and out of the rear yard. The Mid -Rise Buildings Design Guideline state that daily access to at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight to nearby public areas is maintained, under equinox conditions, beginning with sidewalks located on the opposite site of adjacent ROWs. Shadow impacts onto adjacent low-rise properties use the same criteria. The revised development concept meets the guideline for shadow impacts, as there is at least five cumulative hours of direct sunlight for both the March and September equinoxes Initial Revised Development Development Concept Concept Building Height stores 7 Stores 6 Storeys Building Height (metres) 21.7 metres 19.0 metres Front Yard 6.0 metres (4 storeys) 6.0 metres (4 & 5 storeys) Borden Avenue 14.0 metres (7 storeys) 10.0 metres (6 storeys) Side Yard 9.0 metres 8.5 metres Borden Ave/East Ave Landscape Buffer 0 metres 2.3 metres Borden Ave/East Ave Side Yard 3.0 metres 1.5 metres 141-149 Borden Ave North Side Yard 3.5 metres 6.0 metres Weber Street East On -Site Parking 148 spaces 140 spaces On -Site Visitor Parking 22 spaces 17 spaces Floor Space Ratio 2.0 1.98 Number of Dwelling Units 171 166 On -Site Bicycle Stalls 127 Secured 185 Secured Car Share Space No Yes Parking Access On Site — Rear Yard Directly from Borden Avenue Comparison Table: Development Concepts Building Height & Shadow Impacts & Privacy Some residents provided comments that the building should be of similar design, size, and characteristics of the single -detached dwellings in the area. The building form with the greatest height is located in the center of the site. The proposed side yards allow for a significant landscaping to buffer the entire site which will help delineate the property from adjacent land uses. The recommended zoning restricts the maximum building height to 6 storeys and 19.0 metres for the tallest portion in the center of the site, with portions of the building stepping down towards the existing residential community. The changes from the original concept to the revised concept include; • Reducing the maximum height of the building by one storey, • Pulling the taller part of the building closer to Borden Avenue by 4.0 metres, • Introducing a Landscape Buffer between the driveway and 181 Borden Avenue North, • Increasing the yard (setback) abutting the Weber Street East properties, • Decreasing the number of units from 171 to 166, • Providing visitAble dwelling units, • Adding a car share parking space, • Increasing the number of on-site bicycle stalls, and • Moving the parking access to Borden Avenue North and out of the rear yard. The Mid -Rise Buildings Design Guideline state that daily access to at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight to nearby public areas is maintained, under equinox conditions, beginning with sidewalks located on the opposite site of adjacent ROWs. Shadow impacts onto adjacent low-rise properties use the same criteria. The revised development concept meets the guideline for shadow impacts, as there is at least five cumulative hours of direct sunlight for both the March and September equinoxes for both the sidewalk across Borden Avenue North and for the adjacent properties. Shadowing is not experienced in the rear yards of the properties fronting onto East Avenue until after 2:OOpm. With respect to privacy, Special Regulation Provision 753R contains setbacks to ensure that adequate yards are provided to adjacent low rise properties. Further, landscape buffers and a visual barrier will be required around the subject property to provide additional buffering and privacy. Planning staff are supportive of the revised development concept and are recommending approval of Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications as outlined in the report. The attached Urban Design Brief includes images of the revised development concept and an updated preliminary site plan. Urban Design staff also provided comments on the building massing, and support the final development concept that has been reduced by one storey and has stepping components. Existing Traffic and On -Street Parking in the Community Planning staff received comments about vehicles travelling through the neighbourhood and an increase in traffic during events at the Kitchener Auditorium. Transportation staff conducted a traffic calming review on East Avenue and it is currently number 32 on the list. Similarly, Borden Avenue North is ranked 107 on the list. McKenzie Avenue is on the list to be studied in 2020. Planning staff were also made aware that the two schools in the neighbourhood also have a transportation demand as a result of children being picked up and dropped off for school. There are short-term on -street parking demands by most schools throughout the City, and the school boards are working on different programs to encourage students to walk to school. Planning staff acknowledge that the Kitchener Auditorium is a Regional destination and there are traffic and parking impacts throughout the community during events and hockey games. By-law staff monitor on -street parking during these events. The City, in consultation with the Kitchener Rangers, continue to partner to implement programs such as carpool parking and Rangers Express Bus (now provided by seven different restaurant partners) to reduce the parking demand during Kitchener Rangers home games. On -street parking regulations as well as general parking rules are also posted on the Kitchener Auditorium webpage. Off -Street Parking Residents expressed concern about the proposed parking reduction requested with this application. The current development concept proposes an on-site parking rate of 0.85 spaces/unit. The applicant has submitted a Transportation Demand Management Checklist outlining which measures will be implemented on-site to reduce parking demand. The proposal includes providing secured bicycle stalls at a rate of at least 1 bicycle stall/unit, a car share vehicle and dedicated parking space, providing building occupants with $100 worth of transit passes each, and charging for parking as a separate cost from the dwelling unit. The subject lands are within close proximity to existing transit on Weber Street and King Street, as well as active transportation connections (including bike lanes on East Avenue which connect to the downtown area). Transportation Services staff have reviewed a parking utilization study for another mid -rise building within a Central Neighbourhood, being 270 Spadina Road East. The applicant has advised that Phase 1-12 1 of the 270 Spadina Road East development (being a 103 rental dwelling apartment building) is fully leased that operates in an area of Kitchener that is somewhat less transit oriented than subject property. Per a transportation utilization survey completed by MHBC, it was determined that of the 85 provided spaces (17 of which are visitor) over 35% were vacant. The provided parking ratio is 0.82 spaces/unit. Transportation Services staff are of the opinion that the parking demand of the proposed development is also very similar to the Spadina Road East example and note that the subject lands are substantially closer to the ION and should have access to better transit facilities overall. Transportation Services staff have suggested that through the site planning process, the pedestrian connections from the building to Borden Avenue could be enhanced. Transportation Services Staff are supportive of a parking rate of 0.85 spaces/unit, inclusive of 0.1 spaces/unit for visitor parking. As part of the site-specific zoning, Planning staff are recommending the parking rate be included in Special Regulation Provision 753R, along with a minimum of 1 bicycle stall/unit. Building Setbacks Planning staff received several comments from residents on Weber Street West that the proposed building was too close to their rear property line. The setback from those properties has been increased from 3.5 metres to 6.0 metres with the revised proposal. The side yard setback in the base Residential Eight Zone (R-8) is 1.5 metres for a building less than 9.0 metres in height, 2.5 metres for a building between 9.0 and 10.5 metres in height, and 6.0 metres for any building greater than 10.5 metres in height. Planning Staff are recommending that all yards be at least 6.0 metres (8.5 metres from 181 Borden Avenue North) except for a side yard abutting the existing 3.5 storey building at 141-149 Borden Avenue North. The rational for Planning Staff's recommended yards is outlined in the Mid -Rise Buildings Design Guidelines section above. Property Value A few property owners questioned whether the proposed development would have an impact on their property values. It is difficult for planning staff to comment accurately on the impact that a proposed development may have on the value of nearby homes. Staff understand that MPAC assesses homes based on as many as 200 different factors ranging from the size of the house/lot, and their location, to the number of bathrooms and quality of the construction. Market values depend on a host of different factors including the state of the economy and the individual purchaser's preferences. While planning staff recognize that property value may be an important consideration for some individual residents, it is not a land use planning matter. Planning staff focus on whether the development is good planning with respect to the community and the City as a whole. Design Some respondents expressed concern about the appearance of the various development concepts, with respect to style, character, and materials. Respondents questioned how the site could address snow storage, garbage collection and removal, on-site storm water management, amenity space for residents, and noise. The applicant has prepared an Urban Design Brief for the building, which will be further consulted through the site planning process. It should be noted that the building design will be determined through a site planning process where Planning staff will require building elevation drawings that show 1-13 building features that are appropriate in size, location, material, and colour for the neighbourhood context. Snow storage areas will be shown on the final design and location in an area where onsite storm water management infrastructure will collect the melted runoff. Transportation staff will review truck turning templates to ensure that a private garbage truck can maneuver on site to pick up the garbage and recycling from the centralization storage room. No curb side collection is permitted for a building of this size. Planning staff requested that the access to the underground parking garage be directly from Borden Avenue North instead of the back of the site to reduce the potential vehicle impacts (headlight glare, noise) to the adjacent backyards. Through the Site Plan process, the design of the buildings will be considered in greater detail. Materials, finishes, and detailed design elements that are found throughout the neighbourhood will be encouraged for the buildings to ensure compatible design. Lighting, landscape design and materials, amenity areas, fagades, roof designs, and site layout, and configuration will be carefully considered through the submission of detailed design plans and drawings. The proposed specific zoning regulations are being recommended to ensure that any future buildings are accommodated within a building envelope discussed in the attached Urban Design Brief. Servicing & Infrastructure Some residents expressed concern about the ability of the existing infrastructure to accommodate the increased demand of this development. Engineering staff have reviewed preliminary servicing plans and have no concerns. The existing municipal infrastructure can accommodate the proposed development. Through the site planning process, all technical site considerations will be addressed through a full engineering design including storm water management. The final drawings and grading design must comply with the City's storm water management criteria, which require full management of all storm water on the site. No overland flow will be permitted onto adjacent properties. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No new or additional capital budget requests are associated with these recommendations. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — The Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were circulated for comment to internal departments, external agencies, and all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands on May 13, 2019. A list of interested residents was updated throughout the application process. Written responses from property owners and interested parties are attached as Appendix "E" and are discussed in this report. This report will be been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. Notice signs are posted on the property and additional 1-14 notice signs were posted in advance of the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. A letter advising of the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (Statutory Public Meeting) and the scheduled Council meeting will be sent to everyone who participated in the process and all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. CONSULT —A Neighbourhood Information Meeting was held on June 11, 2019. Notice of the public meeting will appear in The Record on December 6, 2019. CONCLUSION: Community input was gathered at and following the Neighbourhood Information Meetings which resulted in changes to the proposal. The development proposal evolved with input from community members, City staff, and commenting agencies. Provincial, Regional, and City planning policy provide guidance that must be considered when evaluating changes in land use permissions. Planning staff are of the opinion that a mid -rise multiple dwelling building is appropriate for this location and will not have adverse impacts on the community. This is an intensification site within the community that can accommodate additional residential units. The Kitchener Auditorium is a Regional destination and does have traffic and parking impacts on the community. On -street parking will continue to be enforced by By-law Enforcement staff on an on- going basis. There have been changes to the development concept that have tried to address community, agency, and City comments. Planning staff is of the opinion that the recommended Official Plan Amendment and Zoning by-law Amendment are in the public interest and strive to balance various interests; the multi-level legislative planning framework, the planned function of the community and the City, input from the community's residents, and providing new housing within an established community. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed development would offer a different housing type and provide more residential units within an established neighbourhood. While the proposed dwellings are in a built form that is different from other existing buildings, midrise residential is a compatible use for this community. Based on this analysis, Planning staff is recommending approval of the application as outlined in Appendix "A" and "B" of this report. REVIEWED BY: Della Ross, Interim Director of Planner ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Appendix "A" Proposed OPA and OPA Map & Newspaper Notice Appendix "B" Proposed Zoning By-law & Map No. 1 Appendix "C" Urban Design Brief & Final Development Concept Appendix "D" Department/Agency Comments Appendix "E" Community Input 1-15 AMENDMENT NO. ## TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 155-169 Borden Avenue North DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" 1-16 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" AMENDMENT NO. ## TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 155-169 Borden Avenue North WINIM - 61110101 I I I IWO 011eZKe]►Ti11i7►1N1►101 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 January 13, 2020 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee — January 13, 2020 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council #date# 1-17 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" AMENDMENT NO. ## TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. ## 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 change the land use designation and amend Map 3 as well as to add a site specific policy area and amend Map 5 to permit the development of the subject lands with a six storey multiple dwelling. The amendment is comprised of the following changes: • Map 3 is amended by changing the land use designation from Low Rise Residential and Intuitional to Medium Rise Residential, • Map 5 is amended by adding Specific Policy Area 51, • Adding Policy 15.D.12.51 to Section 15.D.12 to permit a maximum building height of 6 storeys and 19.0 metres: o Specific Policy 15.D.12.51 amends one policy in the Medium Rise Residential land use designation: ■ Policy 15.D.3.19 is amended to permit a maximum building height of 6 storeys and 19.0 metres. SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT The subject lands are made up two properties, being 155 and 169 Borden Avenue North The subject lands are currently designated as Low Rise Residential (155 Borden Avenue North) and Institutional (169 Borden Avenue North). Planning staff are recommending to change both the land use designation of 169 Borden Avenue North from Institutional, and to change the land use designation of 155 Borden Avenue North from Low Rise Residential, to Medium Rise Residential with Site Specific Policy Area 51. Medium Rise Residential would permit a medium rise multiple dwelling, and Site Specific Policy Area 51 policy would limit the maximum height to 6 storeys and 19.0 metres. The Medium Rise Residential land use designation is applied to lands that are planned to accommodate a range of medium density housing types including townhouse dwellings in a cluster development, multiple dwellings and special needs housing. A minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 will apply to all development and redevelopment. No building will exceed 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is the lesser, at the highest grade elevation. The lands are identified as a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the Official Plan. MTSAs are designated in the Regional Official Plan, are identified on Map 2 of the 2014 Official Plan, and are a conceptual representation of the area of a ten minute walking radius centered around the location of Rapid Transit Station Stops. The Official Plan provides direction for detailed station area planning exercises, which have been completed for Central, Midtown and Rockway stations areas. The City is reviewing and amending several Secondary Plans to implement these Station Area Plans, including the King Street East Secondary Plan. The easterly boundary of the King Street East Secondary Plan is Weber Street East and as a result, no land use changes are proposed for the 1-18 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" subject lands as part of that work program. The conceptual MTSA boundary in the Official Plan is proposed to be amended to align with the easterly boundary of the King Street East Secondary Plan. As such, the proposed Urban Structure proposed for the subject lands is Community Area. The lands are identified as a Community Area in the Official Plan. 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. Lands within Community Areas may be designated as Low Rise Residential, Medium Rise Residential, High Rise Residential, Open Space, Institutional and/or Major Infrastructure and Utilities. Limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in accordance with the applicable land use designation and the Urban Design Policies in the Official Plan. The proposed development must be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context. The lands addressed as 169 Borden Avenue North are currently designated as Institutional in the Official Plan. Policy 15.D.7.4 permits the City to consider the redesignation of the site to an appropriate alternative land use designation only after examination of the following options for part or all of the site; • Is the use of the site for a suitable alternative institutional purpose, • Would the City wish to acquire the site or a portion of it for institutional or open space use, based on the park needs of the surrounding area, and • Would the redesignation of the site meet housing targets, particularly for special needs or affordable housing. The Official Plan Supports 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 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. The Official Plan contains policies to consider when a site-specific zoning regulation is proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands. The overall impact of the special zoning regulations will be reviewed by the City to ensure; — That any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood, — That new buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties, and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy, and — That the lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. The proposed building is appropriate in massing and scale and is compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. The shortest portion of the building is four storeys and is adjacent to 181 Borden Avenue North which is currently developed with a single detached dwelling. The building steps in height at the center of the site to six storeys. The six storey portion of the building has an additional 4.0 metre setback from Borden Avenue North. The westerly portion of the building steps down to five storeys, adjacent to an existing multiple dwelling that is 3.5 storeys in height. The tallest portion of the building is in the center of the site, with shorter portions stepped towards the adjacent low rise uses that front onto East Avenue. The central part of the building is a minimum of 6.0 metres from the properties fronting onto Weber Street East, which are designated and zoned to permit low rise residential uses, including multiple dwellings. The proposed setbacks are sufficient to ensure that adequate landscaping can be provided to provide screening around the entire site. The landscape buffer along the rear lot line for the 1-19 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" properties fronting East Avenue has been increased to 2.3 metres in order to accommodate larger trees and landscape material. The underground parking garage and building have been pulled further away from the properties that front onto Weber Street East to ensure that trees and landscaping can be provided in that location as well. The side yard abutting 141-149 Borden Avenue North can accommodate low level landscaping. A visual barrier will also be required in any location where the surface parking lot is adjacent to another property. The site can function appropriately and an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area can be accommodated on site. There is sufficient green spaces on site to provide outdoor amenity areas for the future residents of the building. On-site parking is provided in an underground garage and in the surface parking lot. Planning staff recommend the redesignation of 169 Borden Avenue from Institutional to Medium Rise Residential. The proposed development helps to meet annual intensification targets within the Built -Up Area. Increasing the supply of housing within walking distance to existing and planned public transportation provides a housing choice outside of the Urban Growth Centre and within a residential community. The area is well served by institutional uses and public spaces, including Knollwood Park, Sheppard Public School, Holy Cross Lutheran Church, as well as St. Anne's Roman Catholic Church and Catholic School. The City's Parks and Cemeteries Division have advised that their intention is to accept cash in lieu of land for parkland dedication contribution. Planning Staff is of the opinion that Official Plan Amendment is in compliance with the Kitchener Growth Management Strategy by supporting appropriate intensification that better utilizes the existing infrastructure while ensuring that any future development be compatible and complementary to the existing neighbourhood, while bringing new residents into a stable community. The applications align with Provincial, Regional, and City policies and will contribute to the community. Planning staff are of the opinion that a mid -rise multiple dwelling building is appropriate for this location and will not have adverse impacts on the community. This is an intensification site within the community that can accommodate additional residential units. Planning staff is of the opinion that the Official Plan Amendment conforms to the Growth Plan. The development of the subject lands with a more intense residential use within the City's delineated built up area, represent intensification and will help the City to meet density targets. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested application is consistent with the policies and intent of the Provincial Policy Statement. The proposed Official Plan Amendment will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a residential use that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make use of the existing infrastructure. 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 intensification on the subject lands. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment conforms to the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Urban Area policies in the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. This area contains the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support major growth, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply systems and municipal wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. It is also well -served by the existing Regional transit system. For these reasons, lands within the Urban Area have the greatest capacity to accommodate growth and serve as the primary focus for employment, housing, cultural and recreational opportunities in the region. Planning staff is recommending site-specific zoning to provide additional direction that will guide future development. In addition to the Residential Eight (R-8) zone regulations, Special Regulation Provision 753R applies the following site specific zoning regulations: A maximum building height of 6 storeys or 19.0 metres. 1-20 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" • A minimum yard abutting 181 Borden Avenue North and 435 East Avenue of 8.5 metres. • A minimum setback of 28.0 metres from 181 Borden Avenue North and 435 East Avenue for any portion of building more than 4 storeys. • A minimum yard abutting 441, 449, 455, and 459 East Avenue of 16.5 metres. • A minimum setback of 28.0 metres from 441, 449, 455, and 459 East Avenue for any portion of building more than 5 storeys. • A minimum yard abutting 141-149 Borden Avenue North of 1.5 metres. • A minimum setback of 21.0 metres from 141-149 Borden Avenue North for any portion of building more than 5 storeys. • A minimum yard abutting Borden Avenue North of 6.0 metres. • A minimum yard abutting Borden Avenue North for any building greater than five storeys of shall be 10.0 metres. • An off street parking rate of 0.85 spaces/unit. • An off street visitor parking rate of 0.1 spaces/unit. • A minimum of 1.0 secured bicycle stalls/unit. • A minimum of 6 visitor bicycle stalls/lot. • A minimum of 1 visitor car share parking space. 1-21 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: a) Part D, Section 15.D.12 is amended by adding Site Specific Policy Area 15.D.12.51 as follows: 15.D.12.51. 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North Notwithstanding the Medium Rise residential land use designation and policies, on the lands municipally known as 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North, a maximum building height of 6 storeys and 19.0 metres will be permitted." b) Amend Map No. 3 — Land Use by: i) Designating the lands municipally addressed as 155 Borden Avenue North `Medium Rise Residential' instead of `Low Rise Residential', as shown on the attached Schedule W. ii) Designating the lands municipally addressed as 169 Borden Avenue North `Medium Rise Residential' instead of `Institutional', as shown on the attached Schedule W. c) Amend Map No. 5 — Specific Policy Areas by: i) Adding Specific Policy Area 51 to the subject lands as shown on the attached Schedule `B'. 7 1-22 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of January 13, 2020 Advertised in The Record — December 6, 2019 PROPERTY OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENT TO THE KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW UNDER SECTIONS 17,22 AND 34 OF THE PLANNING ACT 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North 169 Borden Inc., Joseph Castello, & Laurie Castello is proposing Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit the lands at 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North to be developed with a six storey multiple dwelling. The public meeting will be held by the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee, a Committee of Council which deals with planning matters, on: MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2020 at 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2nd FLOOR, CITY HALL 200 KING STREET WEST, KITCHENER. Any person may attend the public meeting and make written and/or verbal representation either in support of, or in opposition to, the above noted proposal. If a person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of the City of Kitchener to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, but the person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Kitchener prior to approval/refusal of the proposal, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is available by contacting the staff person noted below, viewing the staff report contained in the agenda (available approximately 10 days before the meeting - https:Hcalendar.kitchener.ca/council - click on the date in the calendar, scroll down & select meeting), or in person at the Planning Division, 6th Floor, City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener between 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday to Friday). Garett Stevenson, Senior Planner- 519-741-2200 ext.7070 (TTY: 1-866-969-9994) garett.stevenson @kitchener.ca 1-23 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee — January 13, 2020 1-24 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council #date# 10 1-25 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" z (2) � O 6j (2) \ \ LL OO E M 76-76-m m d LL 6- O a W O O W Q c cu (D -a "a rn =J0W cu�, a �� a Q Z UdH� L- —j DU)a)� Q m z Fu N YQZD a cn o•� O L a W U W Z a a 0 a H Z O��J c 0 in w E E Z W Z W !` w o •- � D a� a E a cn •� � �DZ D E ° o 0 _� 0 W a a� a� 0 Z S o U o ami u a E o 0 0 o w W .5 w a J o a LL LL <' Q YLLI Q p W J 4i �i d>1 U) 'L 2 Q m �= W z U o w o 0 0 Ii I Ilio IIIII w IIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIII 0 °' 0) o N II IIIIIIIIII �- N IIIII IIIIII� w �, II I� II IISOf CDLu Lu w m AL I III III ° "' °`` '` ` ;°` o J z 0 w w ,;:; t° . t I III III III IIIII II II II II III a zW w III ( I IIIIIII (IIIII Joy 0 IIIIIII II III II = al Q cl IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIS' I zJ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I < W LO J Q IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II aU 1-26 DSD -20-001 Appendix "A" 1-27 m �z U) z U) (D L m LL O V! L N cu N Q m W a' a W wzQa`� U O QO >,a� O O O a o 0 LU Q Q U rn =JOS VaHU_ O cu CDa p 0 am a Q 00 z z HJHJ YQz0 �, cv ca UO 4-- (D 0 N Q La LL 0L) �- 0 a) -0 w z LU � W >-0z'� ° (D 'D -0� o 2 ��Lu LU) d �`n o z sw U w Qu �� Q z w U a o�� Q QYo z Q J �> O W a` a <'2 m z C) U zo L z 0 J > O 0 N o Q �� If D I 2 u_ y w �0 0 N �GGP LO CN G w CO C9 Wco w o 0 Q7 �� 0 w Z U D V = a0 LU J Ow z w zU Q m S� LLIJ zw W W S 0 j 6, :)W J 0 00 SCO = rn z (C)Q U �0 o �Jz Q -i QwLo U U_ J Q aU d Q 1-27 DSD -20-001 Appendix "B" PROPOSED BY — LAW November 27, 2019 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1 and 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener -169 Borden Inc., Joseph Castello, & Laurie Castello) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and 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 142 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby amended by removing therefrom the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1 attached hereto shown as Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (INS -1). 2. Schedule Number 142 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1 attached hereto, and by zoning the Area 1 lands thereafter as Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 753R. 3. Schedule Number 142 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 Residential Six Zone (R-6) to Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 753R. 4. Schedule Number 142 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. 5. Appendix "D" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 753 thereto as follows: "753. Notwithstanding Sections 6.1.2a), and 42.2.5 of this By-law, within the lands zoned Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 753R, shown as 1-28 DSD -20-001 Appendix "B" affected by this subsection, on Schedule 178 of Appendix "A", a multiple dwelling shall be permitted in accordance with the following: a. That the maximum building height shall be 6 storeys and 19.0 metres. b. The minimum yard abutting the property municipally addressed as 181 Borden Avenue North and 435 East Avenue, shall be 8.5 metres. C. That the minimum setback from the property municipally addressed as 181 Borden Avenue North and 435 East Avenue shall be 5.0 metres for any portion of a building greater than four storeys. d. That the minimum yard abutting the property municipally addressed as 441, 449, 455, and 459 East Avenue shall be 16.5 metres. e. That the minimum setback from the property municipally addressed as 441, 449, 455, and 459 East Avenue shall be 28.0 metres for any portion of a building greater than five storeys. f. That the minimum yard abutting the property municipally addressed as 141- 149 Borden Avenue North shall be 1.5 metres. g. That the minimum setback from the property municipally addressed as 141- 149 Borden Avenue North shall be 21.0 metres for any portion of a building greater than five storeys. h. That the minimum yard abutting the Borden Avenue North streetline shall be 6.0 metres. i. That the minimum setback from the Borden Avenue North streetline shall be 10.0 metres for any portion of a building greater than four storeys. j. A minimum of 1.0 bicycle stall, which is either in a building or structure or within a secure area such as a supervised parking lot or enclosure with a secure entrance or within a bicycle locker, per dwelling unit shall be provided. k. A minimum of 6 bicycle stalls, which are located in accessible and highly visible locations near the entrance of a building and are accessible to the general public, shall be provided. I. The off-street parking rate shall be 0.95 spaces per unit, inclusive of 0.1 visitor parking spaces per unit. M. That one off-street visitor car share space be provided per lot". 6. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No._, (155 & 169 Borden 1-29 DSD -20-001 Appendix "B" Avenue North) 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 2020 Mayor Clerk 1-30 ZLO ' I W O LO N J I- I- I z Q W 0 z ? O W N U W 0 a ~ W W z O O ONO Z W j J Z O U U) I Z Z L p 0 (n WL W LLJ Z Z W- Z:) W 'V > _ i0QoF-W NN LL LL �uwi H �0tr0�0 Z i 0 Z d W W IZ WCL IZ N W 1 O 0 z 00 Z Z 000 1 Q , m W d' d' d' d' d' p - H 0 2 a N - H 2 a J W i m (n (n U) x (7 J C Z I W (7 ' < Q W� J W QW» � F- J W W- Z W_ Z W a Q Of LL Q I 0 w Q m =^ Z J Q W J p Z Q W O- Z x N , U ��u1U W Z d �nLLJ0 W a 0W Z� I LLJ j W W �Z—cn(n Nof(nU Z 1 (7p tiul i m W �Lu ZOf Q0�x W W< U) wW-00~ QIiNH- �Of0~> LL H- OU�� N(n0Y N z DSD -20-001 Appendix "B" � I N W I V a I ,00 ti N � ' U) ' U N O Np Al I � '1b ' W <C/� N I V� I IQ C/) r m V r O m O � CY) O z O 0 Z Q O LQ N a �a O z W W W Z �2- w Of Z 0 Q LU z �i w LU 4-0 Q Q 0of J Z U) Q J U' Q 0 Z U U Z IL 0 O 0) O N o N U) m Low O w O z o U Q U) 0 0 J w U) Z r U-1 > 0 a~ LL, U) Z z Qw Z ow � a �a m Ca z< G w 0 06 Q Lo a� Q LO o m rn j O 0 W W Of W O Z Of ON OU N N � W J Q LLI Z Z z Q W 0 z ? O W N U W 0 a ~ W W Z (n ~ N Z W 1.11 O ONO Z W j J Z z )NFnzQ} H �N0Z Z W 09� Z Z L p 0 (n WL W LLJ Z Z W- Z:) W 'V > O U i0QoF-W NN LL LL �uwi =�v Z J J J J JJ of U Q Q Q Q Q 0 Z d W of )WW�z aazzzzz 00�Z 0 N O 9 9 9 9 9 W O O of O O '- U W Q WCL m W d' d' d' d' d' Z N N (n N J Ir � Z j 0 U N (`) V LO (O 1- (n (n U) U-- N ti ti W- of of of Q' z z 0 � I N W I V a I ,00 ti N � ' U) ' U N O Np Al I � '1b ' W <C/� N I V� I IQ C/) r m V r O m O � CY) O z O 0 Z Q O LQ N a �a O z W W W Z �2- w Of Z 0 Q LU z �i w LU 4-0 Q Q 0of J Z U) Q J U' Q 0 Z U U Z IL 0 O 0) O N o N U) m Low O w O z o U Q U) 0 0 J w U) Z r U-1 > 0 a~ LL, U) Z z Qw Z ow � a �a m Ca z< G w 0 06 Q Lo a� Q LO o m rn URBAN DESIGN BRIEF ro-0 PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE M H B C ARCHITECTURE DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" 169 BORDEN AVENUE NORTH CITY OF KITCHENER VIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PREPARED BY: MHBC PLANNING (with additional graphics provided by NEO Architecture Inc.) Updated: September, 2019 Our File: 152130 1-32 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" URBAN DESIGN BRIEF PART ONE: SPATIAL AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS 1.3 SWOT ANALYSIS 1.4 URBAN PATTERN 1.5 COMPATIBILITY PART TWO: DESIGN VISION AND OBJECTIVES 2.1 VISION AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES PART THREE: DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.1 DESIGN RESPONSE TO CITY OF KITCHENER POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 3.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 3.3 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DESIGN 3.4 SUSTAINABILITY TECHNIQUES 3.5 MICROCLIMATE CONSIDERATIONS 3.6 CPTED CONSIDERATIONS 3.7 CONCLUSION APPENDICES A: SHADOW STUDY B: ANGULAR PLANE FOR 181 BORDEN AVENUE C: BUILDING MATERIALS PRECEDENTS 1-33 PART 1 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" PART 1 SPATIAL AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS 1.1 INTRODUCTION MHBC has been retained by Vive Development Corporation to complete an Urban Design Brief for the proposed development located at 169 Borden Avenue North, City of Kitchener, referred to herein as the subject lands. The site is currently vacant. An Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are required in order to redesignate and zone the lands to permit residential uses. The subject lands are designated in the Official Plan as a Major Transit Station Area, which is intended to allow for transit supportive development. The purpose of this Report is to ensure that a comprehensive urban design plan will be implemented to promote an attractive development that is appropriate for, and well integrated with, the surrounding community. 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS The subject lands are located on the south side of Borden Avenue between Weber Street East and East Avenue. The commercial core of downtown Kitchener is located further to the west. The subject lands are approximately 0.7 ha (1.73 acres) in size and are currently designated Institutional in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned Institutional (I-1) in Zoning By-law 85-1. Uses that immediately surround the subject lands include the following: NORTH: Borden Avenue is located to the north of the subject lands, and Knollwood Park is located immediately north of Borden Avenue, opposite the subject lands. WEST: To the west of the subject lands is a range of low density and medium density residential dwellings, including four storey low rise apartments. Weber Street East is located to the west. Further to the west, is the ION transit route and a range of commercial uses. SOUTH: To the south of the subject lands, is primarily low density residential, with some medium density residential uses, including townhouses, located in proximity to Ottawa Street North and Weber Street East. EAST: East Avenue is located to the east of the subject lands. To the east is low density residential uses and the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex, a large-scale sporting and event complex. The images on the following pages show the immediate surrounding context. 6 1-35 Pr F SUBJECT LANDS 14 y 7 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT 1(o 9 f3orAt4,L Avtft4 -e Kbtate~, ON 1ph 1-36 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" LOOKING SOUTH TO THE SUBJECT LANDS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY VACANT. THE KITCHENER AUDITORIUM IS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT LANDS AT THE INTERSECTION OF BORDEN AVE AND EAST AVE. 1-37 011 %'�� oz, IF _ I f' J f'AJAL1 ,� MOHNER AVE - — a -BRU6ACAR ST SC • + � x � � . 2v4 n � w t GLENa i. c .. +� ,� it ■/ im � p� �aC m - a Y p i7RLE RI] • ,e'�tib � A °5" a-+�`� -: ,� �yr Y . .. .,. -{ ` . - ti C + �! •C •, �'p�.�.,. G� `- � C:ANtEFtiiN STN � - • t I A q -Q w IF �' �* .. '� E5 •.e n Gp`�`^� % .a R`.r• �:� ��"Rf �f�� +J �*�a`,SPAN D Pl.q j 1q m • . 5 v� ; 'QIP.1k�}S�1 ,. 1 ,xt:• 'w0 I -r a m. AE TZ4r r f G i �' � � � f , :. �� Via '• ;,, ' .'r{IJ! i ,r � } e #F' e�• �L *F( STN A _ + crt 1 r i.ift QBE y i �#� �C • '^�J � 1 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" Site C411vit"t a*XA S Lk,r ro-u*►.oli^g S LEGEND Subject Lands 800 m Distance Parks Institutional Designated Areas [] Mixed use Corridor - GRT Transit Stop ION Stap (-695 m from Subject Lands) tom. ION Route Places of Worship 1 Holy Cross Lutheran Church 2 St Anna's Roman Catholic Church 3 Re#ormation Lutheran Church 4 St James -Rosemont United Church 5 Kitchener Church of God 6 Bethel Evangelical -Lutheran Church 7 First Unitarian Congregation of Waterloo 8 Kitchener Mennonite Brethem Church 9 Olivet United Church 10 New Song Church & World Outreach I Beth Jacob Synagogue 1 First Mennonite Church 73 El Shaddai Outreach Ministries/ Trinity Gospel Church/ The Victorious Church 14 International Gospel Center 1 Buddhist Prajna Temple t K -W Korean Presbyterian Church Pilgrim Lutheran Church 18. KW Open Bible Pentaoostal Church of God 19 Sorting Avenue Mennonite Church �1 Our Lady of Fatima Education Facilities A St Anne Catholic School B Smithson Public School C Eastwood Collegiate Institute 0 Cameron Heights Collegiate Institute C U -Turn/ Self Study Depot School F Sheppard Public School Other Institutional Facilities Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex 2 Knollwood Park Armoury sour 'Map10: Sa ""wy Pfau - City of Kibdi mr King S1ree1 East Nalghbd Mood Plan lot Land Use Aerlal: Google Satellite "gery Some data wneved from COY of xlt bme.'s open Data Portal Date: March 12, 2019 Scale: 1.7,500 File: 152130 Drawn: JB K:5152930 -169 BORDEN AVE NYRPTtCONTEXT PLAN IZMAR2019.DWG IC DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" 1.3 SWOT ANALYSIS The following images have been prepared to illustrate the site and surrounding context. Based on the following diagrams, we have identified the following Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses and Threats. Strengths: One of the key strengths is the location of the subject lands. The lands are located in proximity to the Urban Growth Centre of Kitchener, are within a Major Transit Station Area, have frontage on a collector street, and are within a short walking distance to the Borden LRT station stop (approximately 600 metres). The lands are currently designated for Institutional uses and are municipally serviced. The proposed development provides an opportunity for an intensification project in proximity to downtown and major transit, and the regional road network. The subject lands are also located in proximity to major employers within the broader Region. The subject lands are also located in proximity of Knollwood park, other open spaces, a range of institutional uses, including the Auditorium, various schools and churches, and commercial uses along Ottawa Street North. Opportunities: The proposed development provides an opportunity for intensification and additional residential units to be introduced within a central neighbourhood. The proposed development provides an opportunity for a mid -rise apartment building which offers an alternative housing form and tenure in the area, which is primarily low-rise in nature. The subject lands are located outside any Heritage Conservation Districts, and do not contain any listed or designated buildings. The proposed development provides an opportunity to improve the current streetscape, and provide a development that will be well maintained. The proposed development provides an opportunity to improve the public realm, and will provide eyes on the park adjacent to the north. Weaknesses: The subject lands are located central to several existing residential uses, requiring a creative design solution to ensure a compatible built form. There is limited space for surface parking, which requires a more expensive parking solution, including underground parking. There is limited curb appeal and visibility of the site currently, as the site is vacant. Threats: Redevelopment of the subject lands will require consideration of adjacent residential properties. 12 i�AFI DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" . AN CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN THE SUBJECT LANDS ARE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED 'INSTUTIONAL' AND ARE SURROUNDED BY OTHER RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, PARKS AND INSTITUTIONAL USES. 13 1-42 I h _ xyE` DOkALD sr �S Jw It* . Fye s� yF l.,y -� 'f euRllHKAD e RD f e k • � .. 4 � � � ¢ + R/NDERlW AYE . Borden sirs DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" THE SUBJECT LANDS ARE IN PROXIMITY (OF A NUMBER OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS, AND REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS AS LISTED BELOW: 1. Knollwood Park 13. Kaufman Park 2. Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex 14. Michel Green 3. Expressway Trail 15. Speakers Corner 4. Stanley Park Conservation Area 16. Oktoberfest Platz 5. Randerson Green 17. Market Green 6. Montgomery Park 18. Stabler Green 7. Edmund Green 19. Brubacher Park 8. Rockway Gardens 20. Madison Green 9. Schneider Creek—Nyberg Greenway 21. Walenberg Park 10. Shoemaker Creek Greenway 22. Luther Green 11. Schneider Creek—Stirling Greenway 12. Iron Horse Trail 15 i�AEIA! 1.4 URBAN PATTERN As illustrated in the below Figure Ground Diagram, the urban pattern is, for the most part a modified grid pattern. The urban fabric is comprised of blocks east of Weber Street and north of Ottawa Street, including the block within which the subject lands are located tend to be larger and more regularly spaced. The large blocks to the south of Ottawa Street as illustrated on the figure below are generally smaller. Some large blocks exist in the immediate area, which typically include larger institutional uses, such as Knollwood Park and the Auditorium, and larger commercial blocks. The current Urban Pattern is comprised of major N/S and E/W routes with smaller local streets providing the finer urban grain. The subject lands are located in proximity of a major N/S route (Weber Street E.) and a major E/W route (Ottawa St. N.) DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" URBAN FABRIC The pattern of lots and blocks in a place �tl 16 If 1-45 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" 1.5 COMPATIBILITY The subject lands are in the Built -Up Area of Kitchener and are designated Institutional in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Lands immediately surrounding the subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential or Medium Rise Residential, with the exception of lands north of the subject lands which are designated Open Space. The area surrounding Ottawa Street North and Weber Street includes a diverse mix of land uses. The subject lands are well located for a mid -rise building given the size of the site, the proximity to transit, and its location within 3 blocks of the Borden LRT station. The proposed development iL has considered the surrounding context, including the range of uses and COMPATIBILITY Similar size, form and character of a heights. The proposed development will introduce a mid -rise built form building relative to others around it that is compatible with the surroundings. The subject lands are zoned Institutional (1-1), and are proposed to be rezoned to Residential (R-8). Other properties within the immediate blocks surrounding the subject lands are, primarily zoned on R-4, and R-6 and R-7. Residential buildings immediately to the west of the subject lands are zoned R- 7 with height permissions of 24 metres (approximately 8 storeys). These properties are currently developed with mid -rise, 4 storey dwellings at the intersection of Borden Avenue North and Weber Street East. The remaining properties are primarily developed with single detached dwellings and townhouse dwellings, and therefore low to mid -rise heights exist in the surrounding area. The proposed development will allow for an appropriate height transition. The proposed development with varying building heights will be provided abutting the existing residential areas. The image below provides an analysis of the building height on the eastern property between the proposed development and 181 Borden Ave. A copy is also include as Appendix B. The reduced building height combined with a substantial building setback from the property line will ensure an appropriate and compatible built form with the existing dwelling at 181 Borden Avenue. 17 1-46 PART 2 D&Szgam. Vi s�i o -k. avL.d, Olyj� DSD -20-001 Appendix "C PART 2 VISION 2.1 DESIGN OBJECTIVES The overall vision for the redevelopment of the subject lands is to ensure an attractive, residential development which will contribute to the range of uses and housing types within the broader neighbourhood. The following goals and objectives have been identified for the purposes of achieving the vision for the redevelopment: 1. Create a strong visually appealing street edge that will improve the streetscape in this location. 2. Provide for development that will be supportive of transit and alternative transit modes, and will encourage future residents to walk to and from nearby residential, commercial uses, services, and parks and open spaces. 3. Provide a development that, through the combination of massing, orientation, pedestrian entrances, architectural elements, detailing, and material selection, will improve the pedestrian experience along the adjacent street frontage. 4. Provide a building that will better utilize the large site which is currently vacant and underutilized. 5. Create a development which incorporates sustainable design principles and techniques. 6. Introduce additional building height within the neighbourhood in a manner that is sympathetic to surrounding uses. The building transitions in height from 4 to 6 storeys, to minimize the impact. 7. Orient the building in a manner which reduces shadow impacts on nearby residential uses. 8. Contribute to the mix and range of housing options in the area, by providing 166 one and two bedroom units, and 20% VisitAble units, to support special needs housing targets. 20 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL BE BUILT WITH A VARIETY OF BUILDING MATERIALS, TEXTURES AND COLOURS THAT WILL COMPLEMENT AND BUILD -OFF OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. 21 1-49 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" JA! 1-50 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" PART THREE: DESIGN PRINCIPLES & URBAN DESIGN 3.1 RESPONSE TO CITY OF KITCHENER POLICIES AND GUIDELINES City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) The subject lands are located within the Built Up Area in the City of Kitchener The subject lands are currently designated Institutional in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and are located within a Major Transit Station Area. The lands are proposed to be redesignated to Medium Density Residential. Section 11 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan contains Urban Design Policies. It is intended that the Urban Design Policies will provide guidance and direction as the City grows, develops and evolves. The following table provides a summary of how the proposal meets the relevant policies from Section 11 (Urban Design) of the current Official Plan: 11.C.1.11 Streetscape: The City will support the character of streets through the coordination of site, building and landscape design on and between individual sites with the design of the street. Design Response: New landscaping will be provided along the Borden Avenue frontage. Two building entrances are proposed, one which faces Borden Ave with direct access to the public sidewalk system, the second is from the surface parking area. The proposed building fagade includes a defined building base which further enhances the streetscape. 11.C.1.13, 14 & 15 Safety. The City will apply Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in the review of new developments, redevelopments and infrastructure projects to implement crime prevention strategies that will enhance the effective use of the space. Where feasible and in compliance with the other policies of this Plan, the City will ensure that the efficiency of emergency medical, fire, and police services be considered in the design of communities, neighbours and individual sites. Development applications will be reviewed to ensure that they are designed to accommodate fire prevention and timely emergency response. Design Response: General CPTED considerations are analyzed in this Brief. The subject lands are located in a central area within close proximity to emergency services. Emergency services vehicles will be able to access the development from the surrounding road network and the building will be designed in compliance with the Ontario Building Code including aspects related to fire prevention suppression. The proposed development is located in a highly visible location with sufficient eyes on the property from surrounding buildings. 11.C.1.16 Universal Design: The City will encourage new sites to be designed, existing sites to be redeveloped, the public realm and community infrastructure to be planned to be barrier -free and universal accessibility by all citizens. In this regard, the City will enforce the Ontario Building Code and other accessibility related legislation and regulations. 24 1-51 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" J THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL OFFER A COMPATIBLE HEIGHT TO EXISTING BUILT FORMS IN THE AREA. THE IMAGES ABOVE INCLUDE THE KITCHENER AUDITORIUM, AN EXISTING FOUR STOREY APARTMENT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT LANDS TO THE WEST. ADDITIONAL MID -RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED ALONG WEBER STREET. 25 1-52 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" Design Response: The development has been designed with accessibility in mind and in compliance with the Ontario Building Code in this regard. Main entrances are located at grade, and appropriate ramping will be incorporated if needed. Access to all floors will be available via elevators. 11.C.1.22 Shade The City will require the provision of shade, either natural or constructed, to provide protection from sun exposure, mitigate the urban heat island, and reduce energy demands provided it does not generate unacceptable adverse impacts. Design Response: The proposed development includes underground parking to minimize the amount of surface parking which assists in reducing the urban heat island affect. Shade will be provided from trees on site and in the surrounding area. The angled walls of the building will also provide shade at various times throughout the day to balconies, terraces, and entrances. 11.C.1.30 Site Design: Policy 11.C.1.30 includes a number of factors to be considered through the Site Plan Control Process. Design Response: The various considerations included in Policy 11.C.1.30 have been addressed through the proposed design of the site, including improvements to the aesthetic quality of the site from the public realm; the provision of safe, comfortable and functional site circulation; the provision of landscaping which enhances the proposed building and the streetscape; and the incorporation of mitigating techniques to minimize adverse impacts onto adjacent properties. 11.C.1.31- 11.C.1.33 Building Design, Massing and Scale Design: The Official Plan contains three policies related to Building Design, Massing and Scale Design. These policies encourage redevelopment projects to create attractive streetscapes and to contribute to rich and vibrant urban places. These policies encourage attractive building forms, facades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings. For infill development, the policies encourage development which complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character, particularity if located within close proximity of a recognized cultural heritage resource. Architectural innovation and expression is also encouraged. Design Response: The proposed development includes architectural innovation and expression, and will provide a unique built form in the neighbourhood. The building is proposed to be a contemporary building that will be a positive addition to an area that has a wide range of building forms and architectural styles. The proposed development will improve the streetscape and will also enhance the surrounding public realm. The proposed development has been designed to complement existing buildings while still providing an intensification of the site. The massing of the building has been designed to concentrate the taller height central to the site (6 storeys), with transitions to a lower height (4-5 storeys) adjacent to surrounding residential uses. In addition to the Urban Design policies contained within Section 11 of the Official Plan, there are design related policies related to Transit -Oriented Development. The following is our design response to Official Plan Policy 13.C.3.12, which provides guidance for development near planned rapid transit. As previously noted, the subject lands are located within a Major Transit Station Area and are located 500 metres from a transit stop. 26 1-53 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" 13.C.3.12. Transit -Oriented Development The City will apply the following Transit -Oriented Development provisions as contained in the Regional Official Plan in reviewing development and/or redevelopment applications on or near sites that are served by existing or planned rapid transit, or higher frequency transit to ensure that development and/or redevelopment: a) creates an interconnected and multi -modal street pattern that encourages walking, cycling or the use of transit and supports mixed use development; b) supports a more compact urban form that locates the majority of transit supportive uses within a comfortable walking distance of the transit stop or Major Transit Station Area; c) provides an appropriate mix of land uses, including a range of food destinations, that allows people to walk or take transit to work, and also provides for a variety of services and amenities that foster vibrant, transit supportive neighbourhoods; d) promotes medium and higher density development as close as possible to the transit stop to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience; e) fosters walkability by creating pedestrian -friendly environments that allow walking to be a safe, comfortable, barrier -free and convenient form of urban travel; f) supports a high quality public realm to enhance the identity of the area and create gathering points for social interaction, community events and other activities; and, g) provides access from various transportation modes to the transit facility, including consideration of pedestrians, bicycle parking, and where applicable, passenger transfer and commuter pick-up/drop off areas. Design Response: The proposed development is located in an area which has been primarily developed in a modified grid -pattern The development is located within a central and highly walkable area. The proposed development is a compact urban form (a six -storey building with underground and minimal surface parking as opposed to a low rise development with more dispersed surface parking). The proposed development is located in proximity to existing transit routes and is approximately 650 metres away from the Borden Station stop. The proposed development contributes to the range of uses in the neighbourhood by providing additional residential uses that will help to support the established area of the City of Kitchener. The development will allow people to walk or to take transit to work, and access central amenities and services. The proposed development will contribute to a more pedestrian friendly environment, with comfortable barrier free walkways along the site perimeter, and by redeveloping a vacant underutilized site. Consideration has been given to the full range of transportation modes including the provision of bike storage. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual The City's Urban Design Manual contains detailed guidelines that apply to all development within the City. The Urban Design Guidelines contained within the Manual provide a framework for establishing Kitchener's future urban form. It sets out a number of positive design principles, which should be followed in the design of new communities, sites and buildings. These guidelines are to be reviewed and evaluated with all planning processes and approvals. The purpose of the Guidelines is to ensure that new development is consistent with the City's Vision for urban design. Below is an analysis of 27 1-54 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" how the proposed development considers applicable guidelines within Part A of the Manual. 4.1 Central Neighbourhoods The following is a summary of how the proposed development has considered the guidelines related to Central Neighbourhoods. • The proposed development will contribute to a lively, attractive, pedestrian -friendly streetsca pe. • The proposed development respects the existing neighbourhood character through compatible building massing (ensuring appropriate building setbacks and building height), building design principles and streetscape elements. 5.0 Site Design The following is a summary of how the proposed development has considered the guidelines related to site design. • The building location, siting and design will help strengthen the connection to Knollwood Park, and also provide eyes on the park. • Barrier free sidewalks lead directly from the public street to the building entrances, which is immediately opposite Knollwood Park. • Pedestrian and vehicular crossings on site are minimized. • Vehicular parking is primarily located underground, and surface parking is behind the building. • Over 100 long term, secure indoor bicycle parking spaces are proposed. • Landscaping around building entrances is proposed. • Indoor and outdoor amenity space are proposed. 6.0 Building Design and Massing The following is a summary of how the proposed development has considered the guidelines related to Building Design and Massing. • The main building facade is directed towards Borden Ave and Knollwood Park. • Principal walls have windows along the street to provide casual surveillance and break up the building mass. Terraces are also proposed for ground floor units fronting onto Borden Avenue. • Contemporary building materials will be used to ensure that that proposed development reads as a contrast, and current unique architectural expression. • The proposed building has been broken up into distinct sections including a strongly defined base element to improve the pedestrian environment, an articulated middle section to minimize bulk and a terraced top section which contributes to an interesting skyline, and minimizes impacts on surrounding properties. • The ground floor level facing the street is emphasized with horizontal articulation, window openings and building entrances. • The building edge along Borden Ave is created in proximity to the street, which will create a strong street edge, and improve the public realm. • The building is stepped back from Borden Ave for the central portion of the building to allow for a prominent entrance location and landscaping, to create a human scale, and to maintain the building setbacks of the adjacent properties. 28 1-55 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL PROVIDE FOR A DIRECT ENTRANCE AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS FROM BORDEN AVE, AND PROVIDE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK NETWORK. The proposed massing establishes an appropriate relationship to the surrounding built form. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part —2019 The City of Kitchener has recently completed a comprehensive update of the Urban Design Manual to reflect evolving expectations for the design of buildings and public spaces. Council approved the Urban Design Manual on September 9, 2019. The Manual has been evaluated with regard to the proposed development, as detailed below: Mid -Rise Buildings A mid -rise building is defined in the Official Plan as any building that is between four (4) and eight (8) storeys. Mid -rise buildings are part of the connectivity of cities, contribute to the walkability of areas, and provide density at a human -scale, contributing to higher functioning urban spaces. Massing and Placement: Mid -rise buildings should always be placed, massed and oriented to address streets, intersections and public realm elements, such as parks, open spaces, trails and multi- use paths. Provide massing that responds to the existing and planned context of the area, including concentrating height and mass toward more intensive adjacent areas, and responding to the character and rhythms of low density adjacent areas. Design Response: The building is oriented toward Borden Ave and Knollwood Park. The height and mass of the building has been located central to the site, away from lower rise residential uses, to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses. Scale and Transition: Complement adjacent built form through compatible height, scale, building length, massing, and materials. Sensitively transition to surrounding urban contexts, accounting for both the existing context and the planned vision for an area. Implement design cues (materials, architectural features, colours, rhythms) from good surrounding built form. Implement Setbacks (from property lines) and Stepbacks (from the edge of the base to upper-level storeys) to help achieve good transitions. Mid -rise buildings are a critical element in transitioning from tall buildings 29 1-56 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" to surrounding low-rise neighbourhoods. Mid -rise buildings are to be contemporary and not replicate existing or historical architectural styles. Mid -rise buildings are to have a human -scaled relationship to the public realm. In areas with existing or planned tall and/or mid -rise buildings, Relative Height, Separation, Overlook and Orientation should all be considered as factors contributing to good compatible design. Design Response: The height and mass of the building has been located central to the site (6 storeys) with a transition to 4 and 5 storeys in proximity to lower rise residential uses, to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses, including overlook and shadow impacts. The building has been designed to allow for a transition in height to adjacent rise residential uses. The proposed building maintains all required building setbacks. Building Components: A mid -rise building's built form design can be broken down into three nested elements; the ground floor, the base, and the building. The 'base' includes the 'ground floor', and the 'building' includes both the 'ground floor' and the 'base'. The 'ground floor' represents the first storey of a mid -rise building, but also includes elements within a building's first 5 metres-- the human -scaled zone that activates and animates the streetscape. The 'base' represents the first few storeys of a mid -rise building, including the ground floor and any additional floors with a direct relationship to the streetscape and public realm. Generally, this would include the storeys forming the streetwall and not those stepped back from the streetwall. Design Response: The building has a building base, which creates a human scale and will have a direct relationship with the streetscape. Materials will be used to enhance the base of the building. Materials and Design: Build mid -rise buildings with high-quality, resilient and sustainable materials such as stone, brick, metal and glass. Material such as vinyl, stucco -style finishes, painted concrete and highly reflective glass do not age well and are discouraged. Materials resembling stucco in their finish are not appropriate for achieving a 'traditional' or historical architectural style as stucco is not a part of the Kitchener historical vernacular. Mid -rise buildings should employ a compatible palette of materials providing a variety of colours, textures, and details. A good mid -rise building is one that finds a balance between being too monotonous (one material or detail repeated over and over) and being too busy (too many conflicting materials and design elements). Design Response: The proposed building is proposed to be constructed from precast materials. The proposed materials may have a mix of brick embossed and smooth precast panels in varying colours. The materials will allow for a modern building design and materials which are similar to what is existing in the surrounding neighbourhood (brick). Images of precedent building materials are included as Appendix C. Final building materials will be determined through the future site plan application process. 30 1-57 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" I 1. Vertical Articulation 2. Horizontal Articulation 3. Changes in Building Material / Colour 4. Projections 5. Recessions 6. Upper floor stepback 31 1-58 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" PARTS Rockway Plan The City of Kitchener has completed a detailed planning exercise (Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations "PARTS"), in order to provide direction for future development and stability within rapid transit station areas and recommendations to ensure these areas develop in a transit -supportive way that adds value to the community. The PARTS Rockway Plan area contains two ION stops within Kitchener and all lands within the plan area are generally within 800 metres of a transit stop. The subject lands are located within the Rockway Study Focus Area, but were not ultimately included in the final plan. Notwithstanding the location, the proposed development has been designed with consideration of the Urban Design objectives contained in the PARTS Rockway Plan. It is intended that these design objectives will be implemented through future City -led urban design guidelines. As part of this Urban Design Brief, we have analyzed the proposed development against the policies found in the PARTS Rockway Plan. An assessment of the proposed development took the following into consideration: --------------- 1-59 ------- IL Section 8.0 Urban Design Land Use, Development Pattern and Built Form The proposed development achieves the direction in the PARTS Rockway Plan related to land use and development pattern by proposing new residential units which will contribute to the mix of lands uses near the ION stop. The proposed development, which presents a new higher density development in close proximity of the downtown core, is located less approximately 650 metres from the Borden ION stop. The 32 1-59 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" success of ION will rely heavily on developments such as the proposed development on the subject lands as increased residential densities will have a direct impact on ION ridership. The building has been located close to the street with a range of heights between 4 and 6 storeys. Public Realm Sidewalks of a consistent width are proposed along the abutting street. These sidewalks will be integrated with the proposed landscaping resulting in a coordinated and attractive streetscape. Active (non-residential) uses are proposed at -grade. Parking The proposed development will be served primarily by indoor structured parking. A small surface parking areas is proposed at the rear of the building, away from the public realm. The PARTS Urban Design Brief applies to all Kitchener Rapid Transit Station Study Areas with the exception of Sportsworld. The proposed development is in alignment with the more general guidelines related to managing growth and change; density and development patterns; ensuring a mix of land uses; providing transit supportive land uses; and enhancing transportation choice and connectivity. The following is a summary of how the proposed development has considered the more specific guidelines related to matters such as parking, streetscape, and placemaking. Street Fabric, Pedestrian Priority and Parking • The proposed development provides convenient pedestrian infrastructure and amenities. • Transportation Demand Management measures are proposed to be implemented including: unbundled parking, a carshare space and providing more bicycle parking than that which is required. Enhance Placemaking, Safety and Community Design • The proposed development integrates matters of built form, public realm, streetscape, place making, safety and pedestrian connectivity, all of which contributes positively to the PARTS Rockway Area. Built Form, Architecture, Views, Vistas and Skyline • Quality design and architectural detailing, and appropriate material use have been integrated into the design of the proposed development. • The proposed building design, particularly the ground floor facades, carefully considers the public realm by incorporating at grade landscaping , windows and at grade terraces, and a defined building base. The front entrance to the building is directed to Borden Avenue. • Proposed fagade treatments increase visual interest along the public streetscape, and will enhance the public realm. • The proposed building has a base, middle and top, which are established through massing, stepbacks, materials and colours to ensure the building will be distinct, recognizable, and visually appealing. 33 1-60 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" Sustainable Design • The proposed building will meet or exceed building code requirements. Opportunities to implement sustainable/"green" building techniques have been explored and are described in the associated Sustainability Statement submitted with the applications. • Transportation Demand Management measures will be implemented to reduce automobile dependency in favour of more sustainable modes of transportation. • Urban heat island effect will be reduced through landscaping and the provision of underground parking as opposed to a large surface parking area. 34 1-61 SITE PLAN CONCEPT 1 If t3o-rAve*"t DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" M� jK 1-62 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" 3.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN The proposed development for the site is a high quality and contemporary residential development that will provide new residential units adjacent the downtown and within a Major Transit Station Area. The current proposed development integrates the following principle elements: • A site area of approximately 0.7 ha. • 166 residential rental units, including 28 VisitAble special needs housing units. • Underground and surface parking • Indoor secure bicycle parking as well as outdoor bicycle parking spaces. • A total building height of 6 storeys, ranging in height from 4-6 storeys. • An FSR of 2.0 as proposed in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. • Indoor and outdoor amenity areas including balconies/terraces. • A well defined building entrance directed towards Borden Ave. • Large windows to provide eyes on the street. • A mix of contemporary building materials and colours. Site Design The proposed building is oriented toward Borden Avenue North with one vehicular access, and two pedestrian access points., both from Borden Avenue North. The associated underground parking is intended to serve the majority of the needs of all future residents., and surface parking has been minimized and is intended to serve primarily as visitor parking at the rear of the building. The building lobby will be accessible to pedestrians from the sidewalk system, the entrance from the parking area, and the parking facilities. Vehicular access to the site will be from Borden Ave only, with one access directly to the underground parking, and a second to visitor parking and for service vehicles at the rear of the building. Built Form, Massing and Articulation The massing of the proposed building is broken up using a number of techniques including changes in massing, projections and recessions. The proposed building height ranges from 4-6 storeys, and includes stepbacks which minimizes the building floorplate about the 4th floor. The massing of the building has been designed to create a comfortable and engaging pedestrian environment, which is further enhanced through the provision of landscape and streetscape improvements. The proposed development has been designed with consideration to the existing built form context, particularly other mid -rise and low-rise dwellings in the immediate area. Character and Architectural Treatment The proposed development will support the development of a major transit station area through the addition of a residential building with a block that is in proximity to a two major corridors, Weber Street East and Ottawa Street North, and in proximity to the City of Kitchener downtown core. 36 1-63 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" The building design demonstrates a contemporary architectural expression and will be constructed of high quality materials. A well defined base with at grade patios, articulation and contemporary materials all add to the visual interest of the development and will result in an improved streetscape. The front building entrance is located off of Borden Avenue. Repetition of lines and windows through both vertical and horizontal articulations and the proposed stepback above the fourth floor and again for the seventh floor at the rear of the building will be used to break up building mass. 3.3 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DESIGN The proposed development has been designed to prioritize active transit and public transit. The building is located with an entrance and sidewalk connections oriented towards Borden Ave (an existing transit route). The development is approximately 3 blocks (650 metres) from the Borden ION stop. The development has been designed to encourage active transit through safe and comfortable pedestrian connections through the site and on-site secure indoor cycling storage areas. The subject lands are well connected to the City and Region's arterial road network. A number of existing bus routes, operated by Grand River Transit, are located in proximity to the subject lands, including two iXpress routes. In addition, the subject lands are located in proximity to Downtown Kitchener and the King Street Mixed Use Corridor, as well as a variety of commercial and institutional land uses. 37 1-64 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" With respect to active transit, sidewalk infrastructure exists along Borden Ave, and other surrounding streets. 3.4 SUSTAINABILITY Future occupants wishing to seek alternative forms of transportation will have options for walking, biking, or public transit available. This will be facilitated by the provision of secure indoor bicycle parking, as well as the provision of future pedestrian connections to both the existing sidewalk system and surrounding uses. The proposed development is located in close proximity to a number of transit stops, including the Borden ION stop, making public transit a viable and convenient option. The provision of structured and underground parking minimizes land consumption. Minimal surface parking is proposed. A sustainability statement has been submitted with the proposed applications and provides additional detail on sustainability measures for the proposed development. 3.5 MICROCLIMATE CONSIDERATIONS A shadow impact analysis was prepared to better understand the net impact the proposed massing will have on adjacent properties. A shadow study has been completed (Appendix A) to analyze the potential impact of the proposed development on surrounding properties, in particular the residential properties along East Ave and Weber Street East. The Shadow analysis demonstrates that the height and location of the building will not generate unacceptable amounts of shadows over adjacent lands. The following is a short summary of the shadow study findings: March/September 21: During the Spring /Fall time periods, some of the properties immediately to the east will experience some level of shadow impact later in the day (2:00 pm and 4:00 pm). There will be some level of shadow impact on Borden Avenue and the edge of Knollwood Park in the morning (10:00 am). June 21: During the summer time periods the shadows are, for the most part, contained on-site or fall on parking areas of the proposed building. December 21: During the winter, the properties immediately to the east will experience shadow impacts during the later parts of the day (2:00 pm and 4:00 pm). In our opinion, the shadow study diagrams demonstrate that the height, location and orientation of the building will not generate unacceptable amounts of shadows over adjacent lands. 38 1-65 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" 3.6 CPTED CONSIDERATIONS The proposed development has been designed with consideration of the basic concepts of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). NATURAL SUR EILLANC:L Natural surveillance occurs by designing the placement of physical features, activities and people in such a way as to maximize visibility and foster positive social interaction among legitimate users of private and public space. It is directed at keeping intruders under observation based on the theory that a person inclined to engage in criminality will be less likely to act on their impulse if he or she can be seen. The proposed development achieves natural surveillance by: • Maximizing the number of "eyes" watching the site by creating a visual connection and maintaining unobstructed views from within the building to the exterior, as well as, between the street, the sidewalk, and the building. • Proposing spaces and uses that are capable of generating activity (rooftop amenity area, unit patios and balconies). • Placing windows along all sides of the building that overlook landscaped areas, public sidewalk and the parking area. • Designing lighting plans that avoid creating blind spots and ensuring potential problem areas are well lit (pedestrian walkways, stairs, entrances/exits, parking areas, recycling areas, etc.). ACCESS CONTROL Access control is achieved by clearly differentiating between public space and private space. The principal of access control is directed at decreasing crime opportunity. The overall goal with this CPTED principle is not necessarily to keep intruders out, but to direct the flow of people while decreasing the opportunity for crime. The proposed development achieves access control by: • Providing clearly identifiable, point(s) of entry into the building. • Creating well-defined site entrance for vehicular access from Borden Avenue, one for visitors and service vehicles and one direct access point to the underground parking level. TERki i UmAL r0NFUnLtMtN 6 Territorial Reinforcement is the intentional design of the site to create a "border" between private and public property. These measures are not meant to prevent anyone from physically entering, but to create a feeling of territoriality and send a message to offenders that the property belongs to someone. The proposed development achieves the principle of territorial reinforcement by: • Clearly delineating private from public property via: pavement treatments, entry treatments, landscaping, signage, etc. • Delineating desired pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The other key aspect of CPTED is property maintenance; on the premise that good maintenance practices and upkeep send the message that the property is cared for on a regular basis. Following construction of the development, property management and/or management by a condominium corporation will ensure that the buildings interiors and exteriors are well maintained. 39 1-66 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" 3.7 CONCLUSION The proposed development will positively address the City of Kitchener's Official Plan policies and urban design objectives as well as the site specific goals and objectives identified in this Brief. Overall, the proposed redevelopment represents a special needs and rental housing investment in Kitchener and will create new residential units in a landmark development, all of which contribute positively to the neighbourhood. In summary, the proposed redevelopment will: • Capitalize on the existing location of the subject lands in proximity to Downtown Kitchener, within a Major Transit Station Area and adjacent/near other institutional and commercial areas within the Region; Provide for intensification that is sensitive to the surrounding context; • Result in a pedestrian friendly development that will support existing and planned transit services, thereby minimizing future occupants' reliance on the automobile; • Introduce unique and interesting architecture to emphasize the development as a 'landmark' within the community; • Provide for a variety of unit types, including 1, 2, and 3 bedroom rental units, and special needs housing units in the City of Kitchener; and • Create strong visually appealing street edges and define the Borden Avenue streetscape by incorporating high quality architectural detailing and contemporary design. The proposed development is appropriate for this location and will contribute positively to the 1 l 40 1-67 DSD -20-001 Appendix "C" ilJJ211111�:I! o H o iJ � w a 3 ti L° y z w € m gaa LL @�.e6 as x'3'6 Idk 0 MHON 3nN3AV N30N09 `o \ �v o 0 MHON 3MN V NMHO9 Hit ON 3nN3AV N30N0B a \ x x a a w a a HL ON MN3AV N30209 HL ON 3nN3" N30NO9 CL N I Ll W ti ~ > o N H L O O lwzw mHoN 3nN3AV N30N0H El lo lo xx IL w w a a H1tlON 3nN3AV N30t109 HL210N 3nN3AV N302109 ZW �i' a HiNON 3nN3AV N30209 H EON 3nN3" N3aNO9 �,�ma�exww��,•..r o�®�Qoa�„��ro,�e�,,w..,,,d wrwvoo1�m�c�70m. N SLI d� MHONWn Av N30N o \ W. ZW -i v muoN 3mV NMHOG H NON 30N3AV N30N0B 0 � W. 0 � �v J. a � w v HiNON 30N3" N30N0B HL ON 30N3" N30NOG „ma�exww,�,•..r ooe®�avvu,a��mrmu.esn,�..,..d �r�osool«�71m, d d� \ o� MNON 30N3AV NMHOG \'3'6 Y 11 .. \ z d Hit ON 30N3" N3MOB \�S \ o ' I I iirr \ �W e �- HL ON 30N3AV N30NOG n,ua�exww��ar o�®�aovu�a��mrmxsemo�..,�d wrv�cuol«c�72m, APPENDIX 6 A�.gwl" PLau-e fro -m 181 6orc.-e� Avewue ME Iii IS IS IN MINI lim IN II I I'M ilii lam 110 110i :. NO ME Milli Il'mi, II"m mil IN Ili 1=11will i1 ', lilili �lilili ill APPENDIX C 13wU� Mate r-i,al s Prutcl.e was az W 0 u z W Ix IF u W F t�ii N N J O CO a Q N Lu O ELu N a u N � H � N Z - W W CO LU u 0 W W in a v O > a W O a- a- 1-76 1-76 DSD -20-001 Appendix "D" 1NFi CIRCULATION COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP19 Zone Change Application ZC19 169 Borden Inc., Joseph Castello, & Laurie Castello 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North If you have NO concerns or comments, please complete and return this form. If applicable, please return your comments in writing by mail, email, or fax by June 5, 2019. �>�en � .DepartmAgency � nMU 2-4 c Date OL Name of Representative (please print) Signature of Representative Please direct all questions, comments, and forms to: Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 TDD\TYY: 1-866-969-9994 garett.stevenson@kitchener.ca 1-77 DSD -20-001 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Katie Pietrzak Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 2:24 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 155 and 169 Borden Ave North Hello Garett In response to the Zone Change Application ZBA 1919/001/B/GS Engineering has the following comments: 1. The water distribution was accepted by Kitchener Utilities. 2. The sanitary flows end up higher when designed through the Building Code fixture count. This is due to a higher FSR ratio then typically allowed with the proposed zoning. Engineering has no concerns with 6.45L/s coming from the proposed building. Please note that this is for zone change comments only and not for the site plan and SWM comments. That will be done through the site plan process. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Sincerely, AY tie Tietrzak, C.E.T. Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.pietrzak(a kitchener.ca 1-78 PLAN Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division ' Andrew Herreman, Resource Planning Technician REVIEW REPORT: DSD -20-001 Appendix "D" 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2228 Fax: (519) 621-4945 E-mail: aherreman@grandriver.ca City of Kitchener Garett Stevenson DATE: June 3, 2019 YOUR FILE: OP1919/001/B/GS & ZBA1919/001 /B/GS GRCA FILE: OP1919-001-B-GS & ZBA1919-001-B-GS RE: Official Plan Amendment Application OP1919/001/B/GS Zone By-law Amendment ZBA1919/001/B/GS 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North, City of Kitchener 169 Borden Inc., Joseph Castello & Laurie Castello GRCA COMMENT*: We received a request for comments on a pre -submission application regarding 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North. Please be advised that the subject lands do not contain features regulated by the GRCA. Therefore, we will not participate in the review of this application. We trust the City will ensure appropriate stormwater management measures are implemented where applicable. We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician 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. J Page 1 of 1 1-79 { Internal memo DSD -20-001 Appendix "D" ; fvix :rR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca Date: June 7, 2019 To: Garett Stevenson, Planner From: Craig Dumart Planner - Policy cc: Brandon Sloan, Manager, Long Range and Policy Planning Subject: OPA/ZBA — 155 and 169 Bordon Avenue North The Long Range and Policy Planning Section has received circulation of applications for an official plan amendment and a zoning by-law amendment to allow for the development of a multiple dwelling development with heights ranging from 4- 7 stories containing 171 dwelling units. The proposal would also require a site- specific regulations to allow for a reduced front yard setback, reduced southerly side yard setback and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. Official Plan The subject properties have a split designation with the majority of the subject lands (169 Borden Avenue North) designated `Cnstitutional' and a small portion of the subject lands designated Lova Rise Residential (155 Borden Avenue North) in the City's Official Plan_ The subject lands are currently zoned'Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (1-1)' with Special Regulation Provisions 76R and 93R (169 Borden Avenue North) in Zoning By-law 85-1 and zoned Neighbol]rhood Institutional (INS -1) in Zoning By-law 2010-051 (currently under appeal) with a small portion of the lands zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) (155 Borden Ave N) in Zoning By-law 85-1. To accommodate the proposed development an application has been submitted to redesignate the subject properties from "institutional" (169 Borden Ave N) and "Low Rise Residential" (155 Borden Ave N) to "Medium Rise Residential" and to rezone the subject lands to Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulations. Through the Official Plan review process 2010-2014, staff reviewed in detail the City's inventory of Institutional sites as there was a concern for a shortage of "institutionally designated sites". Sites were recommended for an Institutional designation based on a number of factors, including the current use of lands, its appropriateness as an institutional site, and the presence or absence of institutional designated lands in the neighbourhood and immediate* area. City Council also identified the need to protect these institutional sites during its consideration and adoption of the City's new Official flan. This is a different approach than what was previously taken in the 1994 Official Plan. Rather, if larids that are intended for institutional uses are designated with a residential land use, when the institutional use ceases and the property is redeveloped for residential, the institutional use in the established neighbourhood is lost and the 'completeness' of the community is compromised. As such, to address "the shortage" concern and the need to have institutional sites within neighbourhoods and our community, thr-,1-C were significantly more properties designated 'Institutional' in the 2014 Official Plan than were designated in the 1994 Official Plan, Policy 15.D.7.3 states that the City may designate lands intended for institutional uses as `Institutional' in order to protect these lands for institutional uses and ensure their continued contribution to supporting a complete community. Policy 15.D.7.4 states that where a use on a site with an Institutional land use designation ceases, the City may consider the redesignation of the site to an appropriate alternative land use designation only after examination of the following options for part or all of the site: f Internal memo DSD -20-001 Appendix "D"_4 Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca a) the use of the site for a suitable alternative institutional purpose; h) acquisition of the site or a portion of it by the City for institutional or open space use, based on the park needs of the surrounding area; and c the use of the site to meet housing targets, particularly for special needs or affordable housing. In support of these applications, a Planning Application Report prepared by MHBC Planning, dated March 2019, has been submitted. Based on the applicant's Planning Justification Report and policy staff's review of relevant Official Plan policies, we offer the following comments. A preliminary analysis of the proposal to support Policy 15.D.7.4 was provided with the Pre -Submission Consultation request. Staff have reviewed the analysis and provide the following comments: With respect to 15.D.7.4 a) the analysis provided justification that the site should not or cannot be used for a suitable alternative institutional purpose. Furthermore, the report identifies that that the surrounding immediate area is well served by existing institutional use within walking distance. With respect to 15.D.7.4 b) the analysis provided justification that the immediate area is well served by existing parks and open space in the neighbourhood. g With respect to 15.D.7.4.c) the analysis proposes to meet the Region's and/or City's housing target, particularly by providing for special needs and "affordable" housing. The application proposes 16% of the units to be developed at VisitAble accessible units. To further support the redesignation of the subject lands additional units should be designed as VisitAble accessible units. A Site Specific regulation to limit the building height and ensure there is a certain percent for special needs housing is met could be considered through the zoning. Sustainabi[ity The Sustainability measures identified in the Sustainability Statement should be incorporated into the building and site design and further reviewed through the site plan application. Urban Design and Architecture Staff trusts that the Planner and Urban Designer on the file will ensure that urban design and architecture objectives and comments are addressed through the consideration of the development proposal/applications. Additional design guidelines/standards contained in the City's Urban Design Manual should be forwarded to the applicant for reference and further compliance with will also be reviewed at the site plan application stage. This resource is available online: http://www.kitchener.ca/en/businessinkitchener/UrbanDesignGuidelines asp Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner — Policy 519.741.2200 x7073 crai .dq umartna kitchener.ca 1-81 DSD -20-001 Appendix "D" Transportation Services comments for: 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North (OPA / ZBA} Comments Provided By: Steve Ryder (519-741-2200 ext. 7152) — June 10, 2019 Application Description: Applicant is proposing a mid -rise residential multiple dwelling with 171 dwelling units. Comments: 1. A parking justification report is required to justify the reduced parking rate that is being proposed. a. Due to the proximity of the properties to the ION Rail, Transportation Services would be in support of the use of the TDM checklist that is typically contained to properties within the LRT Focus areas provided that Planning is willing to support its use; b. The parking justification report can include parking utilization studies from at least two (2) proxy sites that have a similar context to the subject property. The study should outline similarities between the proxy sites and the subject proposed site and justify that they will generate similar parking demand; c. The parking utilization study should be conducted by a qualified Transportation Engineering consultant; d. A terms of reference should be submitted to Transportation Services prior to conducting the parking justification study for staff review; e. The parking justification study is to be conducted based on the terms of reference that were agreed upon; and f. That parking justification study should be submitted on time before the deadline of the COA application, and should be to the satisfaction of the Director, Transportation Services. 2. If it is to be utilized, the TDM checklist included in the Planning Justification Report must be corrected so that the 'Features' on the checklist match the list that the City of Kitchener provides to applicants. 1-82 1* Region of Waterloo File: C14-60/2/19001 D17-40/2/19001 July 30, 2019 Garett Stevenson Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King St. W., PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Stevenson, DSD -20-001 Appendix "D" PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Amanda Kutler 519-575-4818 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OP1919/001/B/GS Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/1919/001/B/GS 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North 169 Borden Inc., Joseph Castello & Laurie Castello CITY OF KITCHENER Regional staff has completed its circulation of the above -noted proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment and provide the following comments for your consideration. The subject lands are addressed as 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North. The lands at 155 Borden North are designated Low Rise Residential while the lands at 169 Borden Avenue North are designated as Institutional within the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The lands are designated as Built Up Area in the Region of Waterloo Official Plan. The applicant is proposed to re -designate both sites to Medium Rise Residential. The lands at 155 Borden Avenue North are zoned Residential Six (R-6) and the lands at 169 Borden Avenue North are zoned Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (1-1). The applicant is proposing to re -zone both of the subject lands to Residential Eight (R-8) Zone with special regulations to reduce front yard setbacks and a reduced parking rate. Document Number: 3031523 1-83 DSD -20-001 Appendix "D" The Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are being proposed to facilitate the construction of a seven story, multiple unit dwelling consisting of 171 dwelling units. Community Plannin Community Building Strategy and ION The Community Building Strategy (CBS) provides an overall framework and vision for the entire Rapid Transit Route and specific Station Areas. This station area is proposed to transition into a mixed-use, transit oriented neighbourhood. The location of the subject lands encourages mid to high rise development, active uses at grade and stepped backed buildings. Corridor Plannincd Noise Corridor Planning staff have reviewed the report entitled Noise Feasibility Study Proposed Development 169 Borden Avenue North Kitchener, Ontario" completed by HGC Engineering and dated March 22, 2019, and generally concur with the recommendations of the report which identifies the requirement for built components including central air condition and window glazing, and the provision for noise warning clauses for noise mitigation. The applicant will be required, through a future Planning Act application (e.g. Plan of Condominium, Consent), to enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement these requirements. Fees Region staff acknowledge receipt of the required Zoning By-law Amendment application fee of $1,150.00. The applicant is advised that the Official Plan Amendment application fee of $5,750.00 is required once City of Kitchener Council adopts the Official Plan Amendment. Summary Regional staff have no obiection to the proposed applications. Document Number: 3031523 DSD -20-001 Appendix "D" General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Amanda Kutler, MBA, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Planning Document Number: 3031523 1-85 DSD -20-001 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Steven Ryder Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 2:37 PM To: Garett Stevenson Cc: Barry Cronkite Subject: 169 Borden Ave parking justification Hi Garett, We have reviewed the parking justification report for 270 Spadina Road East, which is very similar to the proposed site at 169 Borden Ave. one item of note to start with is that while the parking justification for 270 Spadina Road East incorporated the City of Kitchener's TDM Checklist, the proposed site at 169 Borden Ave is not eligible to use the TDM Checklist as it does not fall within the PARTS study area. That being said, the Borden site is in close proximity to transit, as well as active transportation connections (including bike lanes on East Ave which connects to the downtown core). Additionally, the anticipated parking demand is very similar to the Spadina Road East site (anywhere between 0.75 to 0.85 spaces per unit based on utilization studies). With all of that said, Transportation Services would be in support for a proposed parking rate of 0.85 spaces per unit (which includes 0.1 visitor spaces per unit). If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Regards, Steven Ryder Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext 71521 TTY. 1-866-969-9994 1 Steven. R derkkitchener.ca R YI els, lube # $ APlease consider the environment before printing this e-mail. DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Garett .Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2019 8:37 PM To: Cc: Garett Stevenson Subject: Re: Objections.about Vive Development's Proposed Development on Borden Avenue North Garett Im brother. A local born and bred real estate agent here. Im all for development, but this is WAY over built. I understand the City's want and need for tax base and development but they also have the duty of care to look out for citizens .that have built this city to what it is today. I trust the City will do the right thing here. Regards, Broker/Owner f MA i liz -Properly-_ enter Q�0 cafe 1-87 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" July 4, 2019 181 Borden Ave. N. Kitchener, ON N2H 3J5 Email: _ Cell: By email: Garett Stevenson, Planner 519-7412200 ext. 7070 Garett.stevenson@kitchener.ca City Hall 200 King Street West, Kitchener, ON Re: Objections about Vive Development's proposed development —155 and 169 Borden Ave. N. I would like to submit my objections to the proposed changes to the zoning of 155 Borden and 169 Borden Ave N. I think it is in the best interests of the neighbourhood that the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. The zoning for 169 Borden Ave N should remain the same or only be changed to the same as 155 Borden Ave N. The current neighbourhood does not have anything taller than 4 stories. This should remain the status quo. The current proposal to build a large multi -unit complex would be a detriment to the current citizens, myself included, who make this area their home for the following reasons: .1) Shadowing: 181 Borden Avenue North (my home), 187 Borden Avenue North, 435 East Ave, 441 East Ave, 449 East Ave, 455 East Ave, 459 East Ave. would all be cast into shadow. The height and position of the building will block out the sun and diminish the enjoyment of my home and property where I have lived for over a decade. 2) Parking would become even more of a problem in the area. 3) The traffic increase to the area would be traumatic to all the residences, causing further congestion, and stress. I don't think anyone has a clue as to how bad traffic/parking is along the stretch of Borden between East Avenue and Weber Street. During the school year, cars line the street on both sides twice a day for parents to drop off their kids. Of course, it is well known that Borden is used as a shortcut for drivers wanting to avoid Frederick Street. But to think of dumping scores of cars driven by tenants onto that stretch of street is absolutely the most cockamamie thing I have heard in a long, long while. You should pop over to Borden Avenue during "Aud" events. Whatever the City did to try to accommodate parking for Aud events ain't working. Cars are parked willy-nilly everywhere — at the school parking lot, in the driveway of 1 DSD -20-001 Appendix "P- 169 Borden Avenue North, on the front yard of 169 Boden Avenue Forth, in front of my house in a no -parking zone. They park at the foot ofiny driveway. It's a zoo. Tr is congestion Is con'Parable to Toronto traffic j anis whenever there is an event -- which is east weekends for somethi.ag or other whether it is Rangers ` games or Jehovah's Witness conventjoias. it is my understanding that very few rnedlum-density developments get vetted by transportation due to the ratio that triggers a transportation fmpact study (TIS) }used on the threshold for the # of parking units, Where should definitely be a transportation stud done in this instance no matter what the ratio! 4) Due to the increase in elevation, when going from Weber to East Ave., the proposed building will dwarf and impinge on the homes currently on Weber. The proposed 7 stories will appear to be 8 —10 stories. 5) There is not enough green space or area in the proposal for the volume of people living in the units. 6) It is very concerning that the approval for multi -dwelling to be built with no defined amount of bedrooms/people that will be living within the space. 7) The entrapment of residents in the proposed plan. Only one way in and out of area behind structures currently proposed. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form `City — Wide Design' Section Page 5 Manual Page 5. 8) The removal of the trees and loss ofgreen space that has been there since the creation of the neighbourhood is distressing. To go ,from looking out to trees and green area to an 8-9 storey looking stnieture is upsetting to say the least. Anti to thinly that they will not be complying with the setbacks as per City guidelines is a Further travesty. How much money dirt the City invest to plant new/srnall trees. in Knoll ood f VI- right across the strect i4 )III this propoa#y? Grecnspaee is €k trvasured commodityi in wban city neighbourhood[ , Tlie develc�Nr �(specificaIly Stcphen Litt in his conunents du&g the n}eeting 00mit ary 30, 2019) was very laisscz-faire. and flippant about destoIisitirW thetroes an the property. He hkto beaLhis chest about rev itidi in, Kitchener neighbourhoods. E-lowevor, the monolithic mo he is propming' 1.9 ce inly nul a MOM lM tt-vitaii7ing this patch of properly on Borden Aventm. 9) The currently proposed building does not integrate harmoniously into the surrounding area. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure and Built Form Section 11 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 12 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 14 Manual Page 000. Also see: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form Design for Residential Infill in Central Neighbourhoods. Section 05 Manual Page 049 and Section page 06 Manual Page 050. 10) The request not to conform to setbacks as set out by the City guidelines is the MOST upsetting. Setbacks on the property are in place for a reason and they should be DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" respected and new builds should always have to follow those guidelines. Vive Development should not get a•pass on this. Please note in the City's own guidelines the following is stated: "Provide a Jill! It -farm which respects and compleinents existing neighbourhood characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and architectural rhythms. Even where new infill is proposed which is larger or taller its surroundings provide built form massing and architectural elements which respect the established neighbourhood identity." 11) Pollution. The size of the development would substantially increase the current levels Of noise Pollutiuii and vehicular pollution in the iinme&ftte neighbourhood, not to mention smokers on the balconies within close proximity to neighbouring homes. As with my fellow neighbours, I also have the following questions: A) Where will the garbage receptacles be placed? No one wants that smell, flies, and rats abutting their back yard. With the proposed 171 units that is a lot of garbage, recyclables, and compost. B) What about snow storage? Have they allowed enough room for snow storage? With the request for less parking, this will be exacerbated in the winter with snow accumulation and storage. C) What about the management of storm water? We sit lower and do not want the ninoff from their propertyonto ours. How will they manage their storm water? D) Has a shadowing study been done and the residents affected been consulted? Regards, Long-time Resident f 181 Borden Avenue North, Kitchener Email: Cell: 1-90 To Garett Stevenson i Planner City of Kitchener DSD-20-001,A� " r 41� G.r °. E. x r6 We would like to submit our objections to the proposed changes to the zoning of 155 IVB ,-Zk H l 2 Borden and 169 Borden Ave N. We think in the best interests of the neighbourhood the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. The zoning for 169 Borden Ave N should remain the same or only be changed to the same as 155 Borden Ave N. The current neighbourhood does not have anything taller than 4 stories. This should remain the status quo. The current proposal to build a large multi unit wrnplrx would be a determent to the current citizens that make this area their home for the following reason: t'' 1) Shadowing: 181 Borden, 187 Borden, 435 East Ave, 441 East Ave, 449 Bast Ave, 455 East Ave, 459 East Ave_ would all be cast into shadow. 2) Parking would become even more of a problem in the area. 3) The traffic increase to the area would be traumatic to all the residences, causing further congestion and stress. 4) Due to the increase in elevation when going from Weber to East Ave the proposed building will dwarf and impinge on the homes currently on Weber. The proposed. 7 stories will appear to be 8 —10 stories. 5) There is not enough green space or area in the proposal for the volume of people living in the units. 6) It is concerning that the approval for multi dwelling to be built with no defined amount of bedrooms/people that will be living within the space. 7) The entrapment of residents in the proposed plan. Only one way in and out of area behind structures currently proposed. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form `City — Wide Design' Section Page 5 Manual Page 5 8) The removal of the trees and loss of green space that has been there since the creation of the neighbourhood is distressing. To go from looking out to trees and green area to an 8-9 story looldng structure is upsetting to say the least_ And to think that they will not be compiling with the setbacks as per City guidelines is a further upset. 9) The currently proposed building does not integrate harmoniously into the surrounding area. See; City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban —91 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Structure and Built Form Section 11 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 12 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 14 Manual Page 000 Also see: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form Design for Residential Infill in Central Neighbourhoods. Section 05 Manual Page 049 and Section page 06 Manual Page 050 10) The request not to conform to setbacks as set out by the City guidelines is the MOST upsetting. Setbacks on the property are in place for a reason and they should be respected and new builds should always have to follow those guidelines. Please note in the City's own guidelines the following is stated: "Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, budding width and length and architectural rhythms. Even where new infill is proposed which is larger or taller its surroundings provide built form massing and architectural elements which respect the established neighbourhood identity." We also have the following questions: A) Where will the garbage receptacles be placed? No one wants that smell, flies and rats abutting their back yard. With the proposed 171 units that is a lot of garbage; recyclables and compost. B) What about snow storage? Have they allowed enough room for snow storage? With the request for less parking, this will be exasperated in the winter with snow accumulation and storage. C) What about the management of storm water? We sit lower and do not want the runoff from their property on to ours. How will they manage their storm water? D) Has a shadowing study been done and the residents effected been consulted? Kiril RUIra;ircl.�. L4 ISIS az�- l`si(f . 1-91 DSD -20-001 App n-- ixQ To Garett Stevenson Planner City of Kitchener We would like to submit our objections to the proposed changes to the zoning of 155 Borden and 169 Borden Ave N. We think in the best interests of the neighbourhood the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. The zoning for 169 Borden Ave N should remain the same or only be changed to the same as 155 Borden Ave N. The current neighbourhood does not have anything taller than 4 stories. This should RECEIVEL) remain the status quo. 4 .O1F4 The current proposal to build a large multi unit complex would be a determent to the current citizens that make this area their home for the following reason: PL SIN. l0 fovjii4q 1) Shadowing: 181 Borden, 187 Borden, 435 East Ave, 441 East Ave, 449 East Ave, 455 East Ave, 459 East Ave. would all be cast into shadow. 2) Parking would become even more of a problem in the area. 3) The traffic increase to the area would be traumatic to all the residences, causing further congestion and stress. 4) Due to the increase in elevation when going from Weber to East Ave the proposed building will dwarf and impinge on the homes currently on Weber. The proposed 7 stories will appear to be 8 —10 stories. 5) There is not enough green space or area in the proposal for the volume of people living in the units. 6) It is concerning that the approval for multi dwelling to be built with no defined amount of bedrooms/people that will be living within the space. 7) The entrapment of residents in the proposed plan. Only one way in and out of area behind structures currently proposed. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form `City — Wide Design' Section Page 5 Manual Page 5 8) The removal of the trees and loss of green space that has been there since the creation of the neighbourhood is distressing. To go from looking out to trees and green area to an 8-9 story looking structure is upsetting to say the least. And to think that they will not be compiling with the setbacks as per City guidelines is a further upset. 9) The currently proposed building does not integrate harmoniously into the surrounding area.. See; City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban 1-93 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Structure and Built Form Section 1 l Manual Page 000 and Section Page 12 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 14 Manual Page 000 Also see: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form Design for Residential Infill in Central Neighbourhoods. Section 05 Manual Page 049 and Section page 06 Manual Page 050 10) The request not to conform to setbacks as set out by the City guidelines is the MOST upsetting. Setbacks on the property are in place for a reason and they should be respected and new builds should always have to follow those guidelines. Please note in the City's own guidelines the following is stated: "Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and architectural rhythms. Even where new infill is proposed which is larger or taller its surroundings provide built form massing and architectural elements which respect the established neighbourhood identity." We also have the following questions: A) Where will the garbage receptacles be placed? No one wants that smell, flies and rats abutting their back yard. With the proposed 171 units that is a lot of garbage, recyclables and compost. B) What about snow storage? Have they allowed enough room for snow storage? With the request for less parking, this will be exasperated in the winter with snow accumulation and storage. C) What about the management of storm water? We sit lower and do not want the runoff from their property on to ours. How will they manage their storm water? D) Has a shadowing study been done and the residents effected been consulted? Kind Regards, �a rs 1 1-94 DSD=20-001-App-eMix-"E" [rrc:t rF-r RECEIVED OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS JUNTO 2019 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form PLANNING ONISI'ON Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by July 5, 2019. 1. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspects which you like? 2. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments - or concerns do you have? i/1. ' k P I - I 3. 'What add IVonaI changes Flo you suggest for the proposed development rTOn cept? 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to wrisi€ferfor t ase applications? P! Your Address OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS Mal taPale 3,+'2 1-95 P191001IB/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS 155 & 169 Barden Avenue North Neiqhbourhood Information, Meetin i'_Ammnnf P^rm RECEIVED JUL 0 4 2019 Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by July 5, 2019, 1. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspects which you like? I 64 V - 4 1 1 9 2. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments or concerns do you have? a } 3. at add oral changes do you suggest for the proposed developmem concepo jubmk, t 4, What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? { ��LYour Ad resp: OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS Page 1/2 1-96 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" To Garett Stevenson Planner City of Kitchener We would like to submit our objections to the proposed changes to the zoning of 155 Borden and 169 Borden Ave N. We think in the best interests of the neighbourhood the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. The zoning for 169 Borden Ave N should remain the same or only be changed to the same as 155 Borden Ave N. The current neighbourhood does not have anything taller than 4 stories. This should remain the status quo. The current proposal to build a large multi unit complex would be a determent to the current citizens that make this area their home for the following reason: 1) Shadowing: 181 Borden, 187 Borden, 435 East Ave, 441 East Ave, 449 East Ave, 455 East Ave, 459 East Ave. would all be cast into shadow. 2) Parking would become even more of a problem in the area. 3) The traffic increase to the area would be traumatic to all the residences, causing further congestion and stress. 4) Due to the increase in elevation when going from Weber to East Ave the proposed building will dwarf and impinge on the homes currently on Weber. The proposed 7 stories will appear to be 8 —10 stories. 5) There is not enough green space or area in the proposal for the volume of people living in the units. 6) It is concerning that the approval for multi dwelling to be built with no defined amount of bedrooms/people that will be living within the space. 7) The entrapment of residents in the proposed plan. Only one way in and out of area behind structures currently proposed. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form `City — Wide Design' Section Page 5 Manual Page 5 8) The removal of the trees and loss of green space that has been there since the creation of the neighbourhood is distressing. To go from looking out to trees and green area to an 8-9 story looking structure is upsetting to say the least. And to think that they will not be compiling with the setbacks as per City guidelines is a further upset. 9) The currently proposed building does not integrate harmoniously into the surrounding area. See; City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban 1-97 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Structure and Built Form Section 11 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 12 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 14 Manual Page 000 Also see: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form Design for Residential Infill in Central Neighbourhoods. Section 05 Manual Page 049 and Section page 06 Manual Page 050 10) The request not to conform to setbacks as set out by the City guidelines is the MOST upsetting. Setbacks on the property are in place for a reason and they should be respected and new builds should always have to follow those guidelines. Please note in the City's own guidelines the following is stated: "Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and architectural rhythms. Even where new infill is proposed which is larger or taller its surroundings provide built form massing and architectural elements which respect the established neighbourhood identity." We also have the following questions: A) Where will the garbage receptacles be placed? No one wants that smell, flies and rats abutting their back yard. With the proposed 171 units that is a lot of garbage, recyclables and compost. B) What about snow storage? Have they allowed enough room for snow storage? With the request for less parking, this will be exasperated in the winter with snow accumulation and storage. C) What about the management of storm water? We sit lower and do not want the runoff from their property on to ours. How will they manage their storm water? D) Has a shadowing study been done and the residents effected been consulted? Kind Regards, f T z� DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Jut j+ P, ?gyp 19 G'.]fCtt u���"1t*�SUtt PI -annul. City o1 Kitclwanor ZONING. CHANGE HEGGUESTS 155 a 169 t3ORDEN AVE., N, 711p y°[pr lot Aho opportunity s� rt s sart,J to ear ru th.7ru o r ue3t; !�; � : , pro xt I '�rqLc 51 tha-a r omo of tto mg4L Isis tot zone change � flt}[7 i�y1,.�`Ar u��?trl�tun ;1y Tr:.; prbrxarty ." o dv1rinmrr1M rind prutuYr WAy dtsttttOrCrt; to this (u'.ur t 5. nt-., tt� y ctJ fisi tl�Yr,�ar �u�; tjw ` bo'p(etiSnimry± pt ns aryl f►xonVWn3 Wr4 r'auU5t4d rsn , to POI It tawt"iy, OnlY tit tlto Int4rtl:." ±C�.lit! avolppors. �Cramm�o re-9idunt: im.o a Kiril ttr Ac. d Aran %-61h tn�.,t�itlr,;0A'- patA ,-nO '049 Witte fCKtamdli aoce,ss. exits, perking, errrrd�+t�-y acct 4,, etc., cor.j `mzrj k3f�Cr��� ltil* ryiodS 01DIOn ms Ther tipplivilion U1100; Jt}orU Mall 1114T J�Ljy.�JJM tYD',.{9ity rin Bo3rdm Avec. -Mv "'Utr"Ov pWotty is peal 91 trier t'wdaotium plamrt.ng aroa thatV40hfC1W;C 5y'ror�1 ti rxtur . o -v v! thO) 6661 c04rn. KWr eeoc,6 PiA (no PWKiN), $Ivplwd Sthod, {t'at'kr:y c0e4rlr1;t. and til Am1 isr . {i lith y�7r1+ 1. how wo ahe'Ohhv churches it"d mo V°hxkr titi,lttl rtl !hG ,dL�cl r.rr�rty i rnu:; ViroW out IbO }"rill m 10f Vvcf'!!, di4vr tt ^Jy:t Jsts o! p• 140 rs d thu=r vc l trtrs to !hb l4tlt!_ T � ¢y t~w r `d Art ltti�srry i ta7'.'ittr��C� Vlily'w ltt�t 1ha prcit' rri la 1t:tl lr1 tirmt's °ct i�vt±rtii� . Tho.�rt,�► 0h.01 J1,011td 10VOYO Ert,tnrN rt v6 nts n #: r� 1a tt�e ruar�'r tu+t 011 b t, ttr�gWO PIZIMN Art) 0 hprtrfty tas�d �g Pertrtas.kru i:ttjri4xS (. the mmt Prt)1s�; pub: ua{), v,t*.i� tit p f g;1r,�11icr�afrttat, l6re�, rt,=!.o.rta and rrw6PW.1 r410n:v. 'qtK tr Corttroi Ore Ofocx x� c,.•rflt ►r c,t.irEr7si�,nt :, if. tt Wt6' y r',04,0 gid, it would bu jxuor►t. to inipo'sf; tt G�i,:�t+0i1:4 i tyrt��:� nir�� 01 (� � r, ark SSfur t t +kr1 spp� rIV zibouJ d Pfit;tl'ide rco 131go r•'.7hj'; iv, Vfay capz 01 e{^��r111"b _'a;!': first+ tl rt-��'llil Ochi # ►s p flrCut4 T � PkS J:�:+LE4bTlal hdl'01 alid}`di•�41rrCir'�p fir{ r14L4.� tom• 1-99 Garett Stevenson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: From: Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 5:42 AM To: garret.stevensoriftitchener.ca Cc: Subject: Comment Shett DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Friday, July 05, 2019 5:47 AM Garett Stevenson Fw: Comment Shett Comment Sheet pagel 001 jpg; Comment Sheet page2 001 jpg High Good morning Garret, Please find attached my comments from the June 11 meeting on the proposal for developing 155 & 169 Borden Avenue. Please ensure that I am notified of any forthcoming meetings or changes to the proposal. How do I find out information on studies or the developers plans on: Garbage management Sewer upgrading Traffic Snow management Strom waters Kind regards, 19 McKenzie Ave e 1-100 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" UP19/00'1/BIGS & ZBA19/001/B/GS 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North -Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by July 5, 2019. 1. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspects which you like? Vt LD t -N G- 0 10 3-•b10 , k Iy\P.ft C�Ty tJ 5e� L� si t`YY1 2. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments or concerns do you have? 1\•i 0 � �T1`�Y\��C � T-0 ,ice 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the proposed development concept? U L C ' 1 Q 01 1 r i i�)-J' i s 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? .�L� l .'> i'� 1�'��i� C�L�tL— C �z�'Zy'�r✓1'� 1�L16t-� �Uk--1�lJ J Your Addres Zl) OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS Page 1/2 1-101 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, July 05, 2019 2:26 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Re -Zoning - 155 BordenAve. N. And 169 Borden Ave. N. Dear Garett Stevenson; We axe ind livat �G I��IcKenzie Ay Kitchener, ON. We would like to voice our concerns regarding the proposed re -zoning h 4 perties on Borden Ave. N. For ease of tracking, I will list our concerns in point form: 1. Our section of McKenzie Ave. is located between the Auditorium and Ottawa Street. Traf`,lic coming from Barden to Ottawa is not ablc to aeeess Ottawa Strut from East Ave. due to the configumtioil of traffic pattern at East and Ottawa. That necessitates traffic to come dmvn Eugene George. 'Jay, turn onto McKenzie and Hien proceed, often at Ngh rates of speed to the stop sign at Ottawa. This is aLn ady an issue both clue to the high speed cars try to attain in our short 10 house block, and complicated by volume. Our street has become uusafe! 1 To give pmpective, one of our vehicles (a Ford Escape) which was parked on the road for thirty tni_nutes one morning €rt 6 am. vas actually totalled by a car doing just that, speeding flown our road in a hurry to get to work. The car that hit ours was also totalled. Had eve been in the car, or crossing the street v4th a grandchild at that time, I ani greatly troubled with the possible outcome. 2. Volume - as indicated above, the umgafe road condition is increased with any event occur-ing at the Auditorium. Our street (which only has l hour parking) is af3en fioll with Aud Patrons willing to receive a ticket pause there is no other parking anywhere in the neighbourhood. Th+err, when the event is over, as residenU we aren't even able to consider getting out of our drive,,vays for about 30 minutes as ears are backed up waiting for the impossible trim at Ottawa. So add in anothcr high density housing niplex with all the additional ears and this problem will become a daily increase. 3. Although we personally would not be impacted by the height extremes, shadowing and set backs, it will negatively impact the residential component of the neighbourhood. With the unknown number of potential residents it raises questions about affect on the suirounding community - useable green space ,tree and canopy covers, and parking requirements. As well, are local schools able to absorb a dramatic increase in number of students? The traffic on Borden itself on any school day is huge, and parking during these peek times is nothing short of chaos. 4. Ah yes, parking .... I would invite you to drive down Borden or any of the surrounding streets any day and you will see the street is full with parked vehicles. Add in an event at the Aud and it is bedlam. 'Now I know the desire is that with the ION running more people will use public transit. This hopefully is the case, however, the likelihood is that the public transit will be used to go to and from work which means the cars people own will need to be parked somewhere all day. It seems short sighted -at best and irresponsible to knowingly ignore an already existing problem and simply add to the problem with more volume. I trust your will seriously ponder these concerns, along with the concerns of our neighbours. I appreciate that housing is needed and believe that a full city plan needs to be considered to ensure that the city remains focused on all the people, needs and community nature that makes Kitchener such a wonderful place to live. To that 1-102 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" end, I believe this proposal does not enhance the city but rather detracts from the landscape and culture of the East ward. If you would like to discuss any of these items, or other ideas with either of us, we invite you to contact us at Thank you for your time .... Respectfully Sent from my Wad 1-103 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" To Garett Stevenson Planner City of Kitchener We wound like to submit our objections to the proposed charges to the wing of 155 Borden and 16 Bcarcien Ave N. We #.]uakinthe best interests of the neighbourhood the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. The zoning for 169 Borden Ave N should remain the same or only be changed to the same as 155 Borden Ave N. The current neighbourhood does not have anything taller than 4 stories. This should remain the status quo. The current proposal to build a large multi unit complex would be a determent to the current citizens that make this area their home for the following reason: l) Shadowing: 181 Borden, 187 Borden, 435 East Ave, 441 East Ave, 449 East Ave, 455 East Ave, 459 East Ave. would all be cast into shadow. 2) Parking would become even more of a problem in the area. 3 } Tho traffiie ancrease tO the area would be traumatt,: to all the resideuces, causing ftu-ther congestion and stress. 4) Due to tlae ine f'eme in elcva"an when gcri ag lioln Weber to East AV'C the proposed bu"cL'ng will d"vaEfand impinge ea the Domes currently ora WOber. neprogosed 7 stories will appe r to be 8 —10 stories, 5) Theme is not enough mon space or area in the proposal for the volume ofpecaple hvkg in the anits, 6) It is concerning that the approval for multi dwelling to be built with no defined amount of bedrooms/people that will be living within the space. 7) The entraPfflent of residents in the proposed plain only oac way in and out of area behind stnichaus currently Propusc€l. ,See: City Of KilrhU"i Design Manual Part A Urban Structure &. Built Form "City --Wide Design' Section. Page 5 ManuaI Page 5 8) The removal of the trees and loss of green space that has been there since the creation of the neighbourhood is distressing. To go from looking out to trees and green area to an 8-9 story looking structure is upsetting to say the least. And to thinly that they will not be compiling with the setbacks as per City giddelines is a further upset. 9) The currently proposed building does not integrate harmoniously into the surrounding area. See; City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban 1-104 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Structure and :13uilt For,n Section 11 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 12 Manual. Page 000 and Section Parc 14 Manual Page 000 Also see: City ofKitcheuer Urban & Design Manual Part A Urban. ru'trttcturer Built Toru Desi far Residential Infill in Central Neighbourhoods, Sec.lio„ 05 lw a nidal Page 049 and Suction page 06 Manual Page 050 10) The req l not tlo catrl`IRT1 to setbacks as set opal by the City gufdelines is the A'OS'r Upsetting. Setbacks on the prV'er(Y a in place for a .reason tey should be respected arld .new builds should always have to foilo�v those and h guidelines. Please note in the City's own guidelines the following is stated: "Provide a built forul which resjpcL;t5 a„d thcon1pleruents ch,exist ag neighbourhood aracteristics, i.[yd rxg bel ts, setlsacl;s, orientatiuA, building t�idtl, and. length; and arcl7itcctt�1 xlrh7y. 1Cven where rlcw said l is proposed whiel, is larger or taller its surroundings provide built form massing and architectural elements which respect the established neighbourhood identity." We also have the following questions: A) Where will the garbage receptacles be placed? No one wants that smell, flies and rats abutting their back yard. With the Proposed 171 units that is a lot of garbage, recyclables and compost. 13) W J1.9i aL�OLtt snow storagc7l aac t1my ulloued e,.iough roam for snow storage? With the request far less pa&Lug, this WEI be exasperated ire the winter with snow accurrrrulatiou and s rage. t j lVhat abont tht a€nauage-mcnt of st°rm water? We sit lower and do not want the runoff from their property on to ours. How will they manage Their storm water? D) i -as a shadowirug study been (10ne and the residents c f1''ect i been consulted? Kind Regards, 1-105 Jul 04 2019 11:34AM page 1 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" OP19/001/B/GS & 2BA19/001/B/GS '155 & 169 Borden A enue North Neighbourhood In mation Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending t e Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by July 5, 2019. 1. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspects which you like? 5 2. Thinking about the ptoposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments or concerns do you h ve? . �+1 Y' �� -� �-; ` L ��., o � Cti c, r, �'� y; t . �+s�-�- w t t ►-1 �,,J .� � +�� . � r� 01 r s �3 � �c o I �• 1 � r ti n �`.i- 5 I.� » �. ,� cI. )y C. � O G , 3. What additional char ! �s 0 do you suggest for the proposed development concept? rrnd S' *%- a r% '4w- "NeLC) "s. C1 to c4,- 4. What do you think t is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these ar plications? Your AddrO -7y OP19/001/B/GS & nkIW4 Page 1/2 1-10 Jul 04 2019 11:34AM To Garett Stevenson. page 3 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" I am submitting objections to the proposed changes to Zoning of 155 — Borden Ave. North For interests of neighbourf ood zoning for 155 Borden Ave. [North — as it should remain the same as it is for now. The current neighbourhoo has nothing taller than 4 stories. This should remain the Staus Quo Intact. Current proposal to build a large multi- unit complex would be a detriment to the current Citizens making this area their home for the following reasons. 1— Shadowing -181— Borden Ave., 187 — Borden Ave., 435 — East Ave., 441, 449— East Ave., 459 — East Ave, as these horses would be cast into the shadow. 2 — Problem for Parking —ould congest Borden Ave, by Sheppard Public School which already Is congested during the sc ool yr. by parents dropping off & picking up their children from schools Also Parking there for Ran er Hockey Games as there would be no room for emergency vehicles to pass through pending an emerg ncy. 3 —Traffic Increase —a seri us safety concern for pedestrians & drivers travelling in the Auditorium area. This will cause additional s ress. 4 — Increased Height from eber St. to East Ave. This large structure would be overwhelming to The home owners on thosd streets. The proposed Stories would look more like 10 stories when it was completed. 5 —There would be limited space for the people living In these units -- Re: not enough green spat . 6—There is no count forth # of bedrooms & people that will live in that possible Go ahead proposal of this multi- dwelling building — a very strong cause for concern. 7 — Very limited — one wa+ & out of the property for vehicles to pass through behind the structure Proposed — Re: City Of Kitc iener Urban Design Manual part A Urban Structure & build form City wide Design Section Page 5 Manual Page S. 8 — Loss of Green Space — free removal that has been on the property — since the neighbourhood Creation. This would give way to thaf with this 8 — to — 9 story project — which would be a very serious 1-107 Jul 04 2019 11:34AM page 4 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" i & unpleasant concern. 9 — The propose3d concepti would not fit in with the area that would encompass it. City Of Kitchener City Of Kitchener property guidelines — Current Property Regulations 10 — The current property regulations should be respected. Again they have to follow e City Of Kitchener Property Guidelines now in place. 11— The Placement of Gar age & Receptacles — definitely a huge problem in a limited Size Property as this one, Contending with the bad smell, flies, & Rats contaminating the adjoining Properties, Residents. 12— Limited Room for Sno Storage —a big problem, as there would be nowhere to Put it. i 13 —Storm Water— Presen Residents —Sit Lower than the proposed structure —There Would be Water Runoff to he Current Residence's Property. It would be Near Impossibl to Prevent this from Happening. 14 —There Hasn't Been a Hight example Shadowing Done Yet which would Definitely be Detrimental to the ExistingiNeighbourhood. I know that a Much Smalle Building Proposal would be a better answer to this problem as the Current Building Proposal is Just Too Overwhelming for this Small Property, Yours Truly, 38 McKenzie Ave. c ner, Qnt. 1-108 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:51 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 155 / 169 Borden Good afternoon Garett, Thanks for hosting the meeting on Tuesday night. I signed into the log at the meeting but have not received the presentation yet. Has it gone out already? If I could be added to the communication list that would be great. I would also like to know what the process is for the aesthetic approval or need for approval related to this project. I prestun,e that this is not part of the zone change application. Your clarification is much appreciated. If there are many public concerns related to traffic and parking, does the city take that into consideration and request that the developer provide a study? I fully understand that the city has guidelines but that guidelines do not always fit every situation and scenario. Many thanks for your help during this process. (::E227Pandora j 1-109 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" 'I'C:i 1r�rR OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA191001/B/GS 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheA. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by July 5, 2019. j 1. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspects which you like? 2. v Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments or concerns da you have? err' io ifJ Crd71f,i+�_ f` !li '1r"34r �rraP �� 15 Com / rn i, -,s, s, , �' �✓ c ��c1`��" P, C I7Lr�S�tll�� U 3, Oat additional changes do you suggest for the proposed development concept? 1, a7L /E430 4. What do you think it is the ngfe mosW an issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? tarn � 2 i l t d. ' � [ Alf-UYour ddr s ,+._ willt lei! plq/ool/e/Gs & ZBA19/001/6/Gs Page 1,r'' M 1-110 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: P Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 7:32 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: New Building at 155 and 169 Borden Ave N To: Garett Stevenson, Planner City of Kitchener My husband and I would like to submit our objections to the proposed changes to the zoning of 155 Borden and 169 Borden Ave. North. We think in the best interests of the neighborhood the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. We would never have bought our house if there had been 7 stories on our street. A construction of a 7 stories will decrease the value of our property. Itiglrt slow, We call go Out ofour driveway with a bit ofdiCficult . if they construct this building, it will create lots oftraffc on Border' which we don't need when you are so close. of main street like Weber. Weber is already a super husy street, tlzis will become a junglel! As we live on the ccrnor of Weber and Borden, it will take us 10 DIinLltes nunimum to get out of our dri reway, That %vill create lots of stress 1()1. all [)Ill. fal�il}t. Borden is a peaaef�rl street right now and we disagree completely with this project. It is a very small street section and we cannot imagine all those new people rushing to get on Weber. The currently }proposed building sloes not integrate han-noniously in the surrounding area. We hope that You will make the right decision for the well-being of our neighborhood. Kind regards, ry -96 Weber Street East, Kitcheue 9 ITY,1,TF:NTR OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS 1 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North Neighbourhood Information Meetin- Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by July 5, 2019. I. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspepts which you like? _ �ZWW—F—' le, //1' 1 in, r 4 2. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments or concerns do you have? n > lei °7r�.+ti�,� r. Y � 7 ��✓ _'�., � . s�r . � f" l�;i'`'� d .cam^,C,r. �;.3 % -�n :..r 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the proposed development concept? What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? Or Your Address: OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS Page 1/2 1-112 —_� --�- -- sr -1-20-001 Append►" - - KIR-i r T Z OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS _ 1 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form byJuly 5, 2019. 1. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspects which you like? ,, J w; +rf I J, 2. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments or concerns do you have? Pr, Vae-q (eSS _ C n"'% 54t,C:'� 10--1, 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the proposed development concept? r - S c � _ - ���r� f I•'4 Ca � i�_ 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? Your Addres OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS Page 1/2 Garett Stevenson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To Garett Stevenson Planner City of Kitchener Tuesday, July 02, 2019 3:04 PM Garett Stevenson 155 & 169 Borden Ave N DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" We would like to submit our objections to the proposed changes to the zoning of 155 Borden and 169 Borden Ave N. We think in the best interests of the neighbourhood the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. The zoning for 169 Borden Ave N should remain the same or only be changed to the same as 155 Borden Ave N. The current neighbourhood does not have anything taller than 4 stories. This should remain the status quo. The current proposal to build a large multi unit complex would be a determent to the current citizens that make this area their home for the following reason: 1) Shadowing: 181 Borden, 187 Borden, 435 East Ave, 441 East Ave, 449 East Ave, 455 East Ave, 459 East Ave. would all be cast into shadow. 2) Parking would become even more of a problem in the area. 3) The traffic increase to the area would be traumatic to all the residences, causing fiirther congestion and stress. 4) Due to the increase in elevation when going from Weber to East Ave the proposed building will dwarf and impinge on the homes currently on Weber. The proposed 7 stories will appear to be 8 —10 stories. 5) There is not enough green space or area in the proposal for the volume of people living in the units. 6) It is concerning that the approval for multi dwelling to be built with no defined amount of bedrooms/people that will be living within the space. 7) The entrapment of residents in the proposed plan. Only one way in and out of area behind structures currently proposed. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form `City — Wide Design' Section Page 5 Manual Page 5 8) The removal of the trees and loss of green space that has been there since the creation of the neighbourhood is distressing. To go from looking out to trees and green area to an 8-9 story looking structure is upsetting to say the least. And to think that they will not be compiling with the setbacks as per City guidelines is a further upset. 1-114 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" 9) The currently proposed budding dots not integrate haatinoajously into tare surrowiding mrea. See; City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual.P A tlrba n Structure =1 Built r-orlu Section l I Manual Page 000 and Section Page 12 Manual Page 000 and &ctiotl page 14 Manual Page 000 Also sec: City OrKitchener Urban I)esign Manual fart A Urban Struct= & Built 1'on u Design for ROit ntial lnri11 in Central Nei ghLourll Dd'. Scction 05 Man tial Page D49 and ;Sections page 06 Manual Mage 050 10) The request not to conform to setbacks as set out by the City guidelines is the MOST upsetting. Setbacks on the property are in place for a reason and they should be respected and new builds should always have to follow those guidelines. Please note in the City's own guidelines the following is stated: "Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and architectural rhythms. Even where new infill is proposed which is larger or taller its surroundings provide built form massing and architectural elements Which respect the established neighbourhood identity." We also have the following questions: A) Where will the garbage receptacles be placed? No one wants that smell, flies and rats abutting their back yard. With the proposed 171 units that is a lot of garbage, recyclables and compost. B) What about snow storage? Have they allowed enough room for snow storage? With the request for less parking, this will be exasperated in the winter with snow accumulation and storage. C) What about the management of storm water? We sit lower and do not want the runoff from their property on to ours. How will they manage their storm water? D) Has a shadowing study been done and the residents effected been consulted? Kind Regards, 718752 Oi c. 43 4{l Weber Street Bast 1-115 E" UV1U1UU i1UAj5 & ZBA19/001/8/GS 'q 165 169 Borden Avenue North Neighbourhood .Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your fee ck using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by July 5, 2019. 1. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspects which you like? f LR CL 2. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments or concerns do you have? Kil 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the proposed development concept? �rM1'.ht T '-- o e., _[ _c n--1 I _.,�P?' .-4. - -4. k - . d., .. _ I mm r— � 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to g consider for these applications? Your Add reds: --r� QP19/001/g,%3 Psi M Page 1/2 1-116 To Garett Stevenson Planner City of Kitchener DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" " yGO 1 0. JUL o,, 2019 We would like to submit our objections to the proposed changes to the zoning of155 ��IVI����y Borden and 169 Borden Ave N. We think in the best interests of the neighbourhood the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. The zoning for 169 Borden Ave N should remain the same or only be changed to the same as 155 Borden Ave N. The current neighbourhood does not have anything taller than 4 stories. This should remain the status quo. The current proposal to build a large multi unit complex would be a determent to the current citizens that make this area their home for the following reason: 1) _ Shadowing: 181 Borden, 187 Borden, 435 East Ave, 441 East Ave, 449 East Ave, 455 East Ave, 459 East Ave. would all be cast into shadow. 2) Parking would become even more of a problem in the area. 3) The traffic increase to the area would be traumatic to all the residences, causing further congestion and stress. 4) Due to the increase in elevation when going from Weber to East Ave the proposed building will dwarf and impinge on the homes currently on Weber. The proposed 7 stories will appear to be 8 —10 stories. 5) There is not enough green space or area in the proposal for the volume of people living in the units. 6) It is concerning that the approval for multi dwelling to be built with no defined amount of bedrooms/people that will be living within the space. 7) The entrapment of residents in the proposed plan. Only one way in and out of area behind structures currently proposed. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form `City — Wide Design' Section Page 5 Manual Page 5 8) The removal of the trees and loss of green space that has been there since the creation of the neighbourhood is distressing. To go from looking out to trees and green area to an 8-9 story looking structure is upsetting to say the least. And to think that they will not be compiling with the setbacks as per City guidelines is a further upset. 9) The currently proposed building does not integrate harmoniously into the surrounding area. See; City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban 1-117 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Structure and Built Form Section 11 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 12 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 14 Manual Page 000 Also see: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A Urban Structure & Built Form Design for Residential .Infill in Central Neighbourhoods. Section 05 Manual Page 049 and Section page 06 Manual Page 050 10) The request not to conform to setbacks as set out by the City guidelines is the MOST upsetting. Setbacks on the property are in place for a reason and they should be respected and new builds should always have to follow those guidelines. Please note in the City's own guidelines the following is stated: "Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and architectural rhythms. Even where new infill is proposed which is larger or taller its surroundings provide built form massing and architectural elements which respect the established neighbourhood identity." We also have the following questions: A) Where will the garbage receptacles be placed? No one wants that smell, flies and rats abutting their back yard. With the proposed 171 units that is a lot of garbage, recyclables and compost. B) What about snow storage? Have they allowed enough room for snow storage? With the request for less parking, this will be exasperated in the winter with snow accumulation and storage. C) What about the management of storm water? We sit lower and do not want the runoff from their property on to ours. How will they manage their storm water? D) Has a shadowing study been done and the residents effected been consulted? Kind Regards, r:,336& 340 Weber Street East52 Ontario Inc. ! .lufyL 2019 _ ". 1-118 Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:40 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 155 and 169 Borden Ave North, Kitchener Hi Garett We recently met at The Aud during the meeting a- osteal there, I am the owner of the single detached house, a dress 346 Weber S�t, East. � I am not opposed to the development of the su ' ct property but I' do have one major objection. The present plan propDs as a f-7 storey wall just 12 feet from my property line. This is obviously very extreme for a low density neighbourhood. Could you please advise me if the city of Kitchener allows for such a situation to occur? Yours Truly DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" 1-119 l i '!, [OP—I9jOOVBIGS & ZBA19/001/B/GS 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North Neighbourhood Information. Meetin�Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by July 5, 2019. 1. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspects which you like? %-u 2 vJ (nom fZ o ( !l - S�/� E ..i : ,, •; , .r ; // hf Ta 4 ✓A A[ L L!S'CFZ1C_ �� �� �/i G /'P:1<I )'� c ! a 2 b C 2, Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments or concerns do you have? oo fid,/ .. F y_ S 1 cS p G1� o S Tv 1 �jE�� c '. �. J c,-��� uJ 1 L L rt -16--A �, (: /�l C" L T S'/ 76" ter,• 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the proposed development concept? What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? I �/ vy� c J %S��C,' wt LL_- .� FIT, / IU1 0 OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS Page 1/2 1-120 OP` What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? I �/ vy� c J %S��C,' wt LL_- .� FIT, / IU1 0 OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS Page 1/2 1-120 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 4:26 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Proposed New Building at 155 & 168 Borden Ave. N - concersn Hi Garett, I am the owne of 362 Weber StreDEa. \I received your letter advising to submit my comments and concerns by July 5th. The hed sam leerns are all the same concerns I have. Although my backyard is at the very end of the proposed new building and property, my main concerns are as follows: - loss of green space and removal of beautiful large trees that provide privacy and shade to all homeowners in the area - storm water run off Thanks for your consideration. Regards, 1-121 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, July 05, 2019 11:00 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Regarding, 169 Borden Ave N To Garett Stevenson, Planner, City of Kitchener My name is . I moved to 368 Weber St East last year with my wife and our young son. We love this area and hoped to live here for a long time and raise our family. These developments on Borden Ave leave us with many concerns and we would not like to see it go forward as proposed. There are several problems that are of particular concern to us: 1) Pesticide and herbicide use on the property. We live downhill from the property and its chemical runoff would enter our yard, where our young child plays and where we grow vegetables. 2) sound barriers. If and hundred people or more are going to live in that lot and have a recreational area behind it then they will easily see into our yard, as that lot is at a much higher grade than our fence. We would suffer from, noise pollution and from the invasion of privacy. The seclusion of our backyard is one of its key features and this would certainly drive down our property value if we would be to sell. 3) The amount of construction dust that. will be created and accumulated in our yard and home. My wife and son are asthmatic and cannot tolerate the debris from a large construction project so close to home. We are also presenting issues that concern the neighbourhood as a whole. We would like to submit our objections to the proposed changes to the zoning of 155 Borden and 169 Borden Ave N. We think in the best interests of the neighbourhood the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. The zoning for 169 Borden Ave N should remain the same or only be changed to the same as 155 Borden Ave N. The current neighbourhood does not have anything taller than 4 storeys. This should remain the status quo. The current proposal to build a large multi -unit complex would be a detriment to the current citizens that make this area their home for the following reasons: 1) Shadowing: 181 Borden, 187 Borden, 435 East Ave., 441 East Ave., 455 East Ave., 159 East Ave. would all be cast into shadow. 2) Parking would become even more of a problem in the area. 3) The tta£fic increase to the area would be traumatic to all the residenees, causing further congestion and stress 4) Due to the increase in elevation when going from Weber to East Ave thr proposed building will dv4wf and impinge on the liomes currently on Weber. The proposed 7 storeys will appear to be 8-1 0 ,0areys. 5) There is not enough green space or area in the proposal for the volume of people living in the Lalits. 6) It is eoacemirrg that the approval for multi -unit dwellings does not define how marry bed roarns or people ►,►rill be living in that space. 7) The entrapment of residents in the proposed plan: there is only one way in and out of the area behind the structures currently proposed. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A: Urban Structure and Built Form, 'City -Wide Design' Section, Page 5, Manual Page 5. 1-122 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" 8) The removal of the trees and the loss of green space that has been there since the creation of the neighbourhood is distressing. To go from looking out on trees and green area to a structure that looks 8-9 storeys tall is upsetting, to say the least. And to think that they will not be complying with the setbacks as per City guidelines is even more upsetting. 9) The currently proposed building does Piot integrate ham-toniouslyinto the surrounding area. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A: Urban structure and built form Section 1 l Manual .Page, 000 and Section Page 12 Manual Page 000 and Section Page 14 and Mwival Page 000, Also seep City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A: Urban Structure and Bunt Form Design for Residential Infill in Central Neighbourhoods. Section 05 Manual Page 49 and Section 06 Manual page 050. 10) The request not to conform to setbacks as set out by the City guidelines is the MOST upsetting. Setbacks on the property. are in place for a reason and they should be respected, and new builds should always have to follow those guidelines. Please note in the city's own guidelines it is stated: "Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and architectural rhythms. Even where new infill is proposed which is larger or taller than its surroundings provide built form massing and architectural elements which respect the established neighbourhood identity." We also have the following questions: A) Where will the garbage. receptacles be placed? Nobody wants that smell, flies, and rate abutting their backyard. With the proposed 171 units that is a lot of garbage, recyclables, and compost. B) What about snow storage? Have they allowed enough room for snow storage? With the request for less parking, this will be exacerbated in the winter with snow accumulation and storage. C) What about the management of sewage and stormwater? We sit lower and do not want the runoff from their property onto ours. How will they manage their stormwater? D) Has a shadowing study been done and the residents affected been consulted? Kind regards, (]368 Veber st ) 1-123 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, July 05, 2019 11:06 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Borden Avenue development To Garett Stevenson, Planner, City of Kitchener My name is moved to 368 Weber St East last year with my husband and our young son. We love this area and hoped to live here for a long time and raise our family. These developments on Borden Ave leave us with many concerns and we would not like to see it go forward as proposed. There are several problems that are of particular concern to us: 1) Pesticide and herbicide use on the property. We live downhill from the property and its chemical runoff would enter our yard, where our young child plays and where we grow vegetables. 2) sound barriers. If and hundred people or more are going to live in that lot and have a recreational area behind it then they will easily see into our yard, as that lot is at a much higher grade than our fence. We would suffer from noise pollution and from the invasion of privacy. The seclusion of our backyard is one of its key features and this would certainly drive down our property value if we would be to sell. 3) The amount of construction dust that will be created and accumulated in our yard and home. My wife and son are asthmatic and cannot tolerate the debris from a large construction project so close to home. We are also presenting issues that concern the neighbourhood as a whole. We would like to submit our objections to the proposed changes to the zoning of 155 Borden and 169 Borden Ave N. We think in the best interests of the neighbourhood the zoning for 155 Borden Ave N should remain the same. The zoning for 169 Borden Ave N should remain the same or only be changed to the same as 155 Borden Ave N. The current neighbourhood does not have anything taller than 4 storeys. This should remain the status quo. The current proposal to build a large multi -unit complex would be a detriment to the current citizens that make this area their home for the following reasons: 1) Shadowing: 181 Borden, 187 Borden, 435 East Ave., 441 East Ave., 455 East Ave., 159 East Ave. would all be cast into shadow. 2) Parking would become even more of a problem in the area. 3) The traffic increase to the area would be traumatic to all the residences, causing further congestion and stress 4) Due to the increase in elevation when going from Weber to East Ave the proposed building will dwarf and impinge on the homes currently on Weber. The proposed 7 storeys will appear to be 8-10 storeys. 5) There is not enough green space or area in the proposal for the volume of people living in the units. 6) It is concerning that the approval for multi -unit dwellings does not define how many bedrooms or people will be living in that space. 7) The entrapment of residents in the proposed plan: there is only one way in and out of the area behind the structures currently proposed. See: City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual Part A: Urban Structure and Built Form, 'City -Wide Design' Section, Page 5, Manual Page 5. 1-124 DSD -20-001 Appendix "E" 8) The removal of the trees and the loss of green space that has been there since the creation of the neighbourhood is distressing. To go from looking out on trees and green area to a structure that looks 8-9 storeys tall is upsetting, to say the least. And to think that they will not be complying with the setbacks as per City guidelines is even more upsetting. 9) Iia+e currently prolapsed builIng dues not integraale hamionlously into Ilse surrounding arta. See; City or KiIcbeuer Urban rksign Mw aI Pal A: Urban slruc#ure and built farm Section 1 1Mnnutrl Page 000 ancl. Section Page 12.14ltuuml Pogo 000 and Sejotion Page 14 ark 11 anuW Page 000. Also soe: City of Kite-bener Urhaay DaE;igp Manual Part A: UrIxin Slnlcture and Built Fonn Desigai t(}r Residcaltial .liaiilI in Central l+ leighbourhoorls. Section 05maanua 1 page 49 and Section 06 Manua[ Page 050. 10) The request not to conform to setbacks as set out by the City guidelines is the MOST upsetting. Setbacks on the property are in place for a reason and they should be respected, and new builds should always have to follow those guidelines. Please note in the city's own guidelines it is stated: "Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and architectural rhythms. Even where new infill is proposed which is larger or taller than its surroundings provide built form massing and architectural elements which respect the established neighbourhood identity." We also have the following questions: A) Where will the garbage receptacles be placed? Nobody wants that smell, flies, and rate abutting their backyard. With the proposed 171 units that is a lot of garbage, recyclables, and compost. B) What about snow storage? Have they allowed enough room for snow storage? With the request for less parking, this will be exacerbated in the winter with snow accumulation and storage. C) What about the management of sewage and stormwater? We sit lower and do not want the runoff from their property onto ours. How will they manage their stormwater? D) Has a shadowing study been done and the residents affected been consulted? Kind regards, Et8ci berfit IJler, 1--125 OP1 9/001 /B/GS & ZBA1 9/001 /B/GS 155 & 169 Borden Avenue North Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by July 5, 2019. 1. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, are there aspects which you like? - Increased residential density to the neighbourhood which hopefully drives increased public and active transportation infrastructure in the area as well as commercial, entertainment, and hospitality development in such places as Eastwood Square 2. Thinking about the proposed development concept presented at the meeting, what comments or concerns do you have? - Overall size and height of the development - too big. Would prefer height to 4 stories and increased buffer between neighbouring properties - Uninspired architectural design doesn't "fit" with the neighbourhood - Loss of mature trees/canopy on the property - Impact to older homes during construction 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the proposed development concept? - Limit height to 4 stories 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? - Size and height of the development and proximity to neighbouring properties Your Address: 378 Weber Street East OP19/001/B/GS & ZBA19/001/B/GS Page 1/2 Staff Report Development Services Department REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: January 13, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Della Ross, Interim Director of Planning PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 x 7070 WARD INVOLVED: Ward 1 DATE OF REPORT: November 27, 2019 REPORT NO.: DSD -20-002 SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic, Dean Kovacevic, & Keystone Property Developments Inc. 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Location Map: Subject Properties RECOMMENDATION: f N J x wwwkitchener.ca A. That Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS for Milan Kovacevic, Dean Kovacevic, & Keystone Property Developments Inc. requesting a change in designation from Low Rise Residential and Medium Rise Residential to Medium Rise Residential with *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 2-1 Site Specific Policy Area 52 to permit a ten storey multiple dwelling development on the parcel of land specified and illustrated on Schedule `A', be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD 20-002 as Appendix `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; AND B. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZC15/015/F/GS for Milan Kovacevic, Dean Kovacevic, & Keystone Property Developments Inc. requesting a change from Residential Three (R-3) and Residential Eight (R-8) to Residential Eight with Special Regulation Provision 752R on the parcel of land specified and illustrated on Map No. 1, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" dated November 27, 2019, attached to Report DSD 20-002 as Appendix "B"; AND C. 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 ZC15/015/F/GS, AND FURTHER D. That the Urban Design Brief dated May 2015 (updated November 2019), and attached to Report DSD -20-002 as Appendix "C", be adopted, and that staff be directed to apply the Urban Design Brief through the Site Plan Approval process. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Planning staff is recommending approval of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new 10 storey multiple residential building. The recommended Official Plan policies and zoning regulations would permit two additional floors on the building compared to the existing permissions, to use the land area of 39 Avon Road in the calculation for Floor Space Ratio (FSR), and a reduced on-site parking rate. To ensure a built form that is stepped into the neighbourhood, additional step backs and setbacks are also recommended. Only buildings that are less than one storey, such as any garage exit stair or amenity space, are permitted within 58 metres of 45 Avon Road. A 3.8 metre landscape buffer, along with a requirement for a visual barrier, is proposed between the above ground parking area and Avon Road. A regulation to require secured and visitor bicycle stalls is also proposed. 1:74107:45 The subject lands are made up of three properties, being 859 and 843 Frederick Street as well as 39 Avon Road. The subject lands comprise a C-shaped property with an area of approximately 0.56 hectares (1.38 acres) and are bordered by Frederick Street to the north, Avon Road to the east, a residential property to the south, and a residential property and City -owned park (Rosemount Park) to the west. The lands surround 31 and 35 Avon Road, which have each been redeveloped with multiple dwelling uses (triplexes). Each property is currently developed with a single detached dwelling. While 859 and 843 Frederick Street are each development with a single detached dwelling, the current Official Plan policies and Zoning regulations permit multiple dwellings up to 8 storeys in height. Two Neighbourhood Information Meetings were held to gather public input on the applications. Staff also met with the owners and their consultants to work through design and technical comments and concerns. The public input, working meetings, and discussions have resulted in several changes to the proposal. The initial Official Plan Amendment application requested the land use designation be changed to High Rise Residential with a Special Policy to permit a maximum building height to 12 storeys and to increase the maximum FSR to 2.20. The initial Zoning By-law Amendment application requested Residential 2-2 Nine (R-9) zoning with special regulation provisions to permit additional home business uses, a reduced parking rate, a maximum building height of 35.0 metres (12 storeys), and a maximum FSR of 2.20. Provincial, Regional, and City planning policy provide guidance that must be considered when evaluating changes in land use permissions as discussed below. Planning Analysis: Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 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 build strong healthy communities. The PPS is supportive of efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term, communities that accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses, promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, and promoting development and land use patterns that conserve biodiversity and consider the impacts of a changing climate. Further, the PPS directs the development of new housing to locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are orwill be available to support current and projected needs and promotes densities for new housing which efficiently uses land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities. The plan also supports the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed. The Provincial government is undertaking consultations on proposed changes to the PPS along with the Growth Plan and Planning Act. At this time, the proposed changes to the PPS relate to encouraging the development of an increased mix and supply of housing, protecting the environment and public safety, reducing barriers and costs for development and to provide greater predictability, to support rural, northern and Indigenous communities, to support the economy and jobs, and to maintain protections for the Greenbelt. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed applications will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a more intensive residential use that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make use of the existing infrastructure. 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 intensification on the subject lands. Planning staff is 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, 2019 (Growth Plan) Part of the Vision of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) is to have sufficient housing supply that reflects market demand and what is needed in local communities. Two of the Guiding Principles of the Growth Plan are to prioritize intensification and higher densities in strategic growth areas to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability and to support a range and mix of housing options, including second units and affordable housing, to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households. To support the achievement of complete communities, 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 will require a minimum of 50 per cent of all residential development occurring annually within the Region of Waterloo to be within the delineated Built -Up 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, including second units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. 2-3 Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan. The development of the subject lands with a more intense residential use within the City's delineated Built -Up Area, represent intensification and will help the City to meet density targets. Housing policies of the Growth Plan support the development of a range and mix of housing options that serves the needs of a variety of household sizes, incomes and ages. The proposed development includes 88 one bedroom units, 27 two bedroom units, and 7 townhouse units. Regional Official Plan (ROP) Urban Area policies in the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. This area contains the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support major growth, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply systems and municipal wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. The area is also served by the existing Regional transit system and is along a planned transit corridor. For these reasons, lands within the Urban Area have the greatest capacity to accommodate growth and serve as the primary focus for employment, housing, cultural and recreational opportunities in the region. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. Regional Planning staff have no objections to the proposed applications and provided comments (Appendix "D") that will be taken under advisement for future development applications. Recommended Official Plan Amendment An Official Plan amendment is recommended to change the Land Use Designation from Low Rise Residential (39 Avon Road) and Medium Rise Residential (859 & 867 Frederick) to Medium Rise Residential with Site Specific Policy Area 52. Site Specific Policy Area 52 would permit two additional storeys, for a total of 10 storeys or 33.75 metres, rather than 8 storeys or 25 metres as permitted in the Medium Rise Residential land use designation. City of Kitchener Official Plan The vision of the new Official Plan states "Togetherwe will build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community contributing to an exceptional quality of life." A complete community creates and provides access to a mix of land uses including a full range and mix of housing types. A complete community also supports the use of public transit and active transportation, enabling residents to meet most of their daily needs within a short distance of their homes. Planning for a complete community will aid in reducing the cost of infrastructure and servicing, encourage the use of public transit and active modes of transportation, promote social interaction, and foster a sense of community. Urban Structure The lands are identified as a Community Area in the Official Plan. 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. Lands within Community Areas may be designated as Low Rise Residential, Medium Rise Residential, High Rise Residential, Open Space, Institutional and/or Major Infrastructure and Utilities. Limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in accordance with the applicable land use designation and the Urban Design Policies in the Official Plan. The proposed development must be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context. 2-4 Housing The Official Plan Supports 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 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. The Official Plan contains policies to consider when a site-specific zoning regulation is proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands. The overall impact of the special zoning regulations will be reviewed by the City to ensure; — That any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood, — That new buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties, and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy, and — That the lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. The impact of each special zoning regulation must be reviewed prior to formulating a recommendation to ensure that a deficiency in the one zoning requirement does not compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning deficiencies. Medium Rise Residential Land Use Designation The Medium Rise Residential land use designation is applied to lands that are planned to accommodate a range of medium density housing types including townhouse dwellings in a cluster development, multiple dwellings and special needs housing. A minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 will apply to all development and redevelopment. No building will exceed 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is the lesser, at the highest grade elevation. The predominant land use within the Medium Rise Residential land use designation will be multiple residential but it is intended that complementary non-residential land uses may be permitted to locate within this land use designation subject to any locational criteria and the appropriate zoning being in place. Urban Design The City is committed to achieving a high standard of urban design, architecture and place -making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. Urban design is a vital component of city planning and 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. Urban Design policies in the new Official Plan support creating visually distinctive and identifiable places, structures and spaces that contribute to a strong sense of place and community pride, a distinct character and community focal points that promote and recognize excellence and innovation in architecture, urban design, sustainable building design and landscape design. The City will require high quality urban design in the review of all development applications through the implementation of the policies of the new Official Plan and the City's Urban Design Manual. 2-5 Official Plan Analysis Site Specific Policy Area 52 is intended to ensure that any future building is compatible. The proposed permissions would permit an additional two storeys of building height, for a total of 10 storeys and 33.75 metres. The proposed additional height will result in a building that is appropriate in massing and scale and is compatible with the built form and the community character of the community. The lands addressed as 39 Avon Road would be used to calculate the total FSR of the future building, however it is recognized that this portion of the consolidated lands should not be the area where additional building mass is located. While the lands addressed as 39 Avon Road are proposed to be redesignated from Low Rise Residential to Medium Rise Residential, the bulk of the building mass will be positioned along Frederick Street and away form the lower density residential uses in the neighbourhood. While the building height is proposed to be increased by two storeys, the overall total FSR is not proposed to be increased beyond what is permitted in the Medium Rise Residential land use designation. Redesignating 39 Avon Road would allow that lot area to be included in the FSR calculation. In accordance with Policy 15.D.3.18, a minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 will apply to all development and redevelopment. The proposed development is sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and appropriate screening and buffering will be provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. Special Regulation Provision 752R includes a policy that requires a 58 metres setback from 45 Avon Road for any building, or portion thereof, greater than one storey in height. The only buildings proposed to be located within the setback are exit stairs for the underground parking level and any proposed amenity areas. The landscaping along the west side yard will accommodate a visual barrier buffering from 831 Frederick Street. A setback of 9.0 metres is also proposed from 831 Frederick Street to provide separation from the existing single detached dwelling, but also to ensure adequate separation between the proposed building and any future redevelopment on those lands. A walkway and landscape buffer is also proposed along the south property line, providing buffering to 45 Avon Street. The recommended site specific zoning also requires a 3.8 metre landscape buffer along Avon Road to buffer the surface parking from 38 and 46 Avon Road (across the street). The site can function appropriately and does not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties. Planning Staff are recommending a reduced off-street parking rate of 1.2 spaces/unit including visitor. The 20% visitor parking in Zoning By-law 85-1 is not proposed to be amended even though the new Zoning By-law only requires 15% (or 0.15 spaces/unit). The preliminary site plan provides on site amenity space as well as a direct connection to the adjacent Rosemount Park. The redevelopment of the site will also increase visibility into Rosemount Park, and a publically accessible walkway is also proposed from Avon Road to the park over the subject lands. The Site Plan approval process will be comprehensive and will be guided by the attached Urban Design Brief. Lighting, landscape design and materials, amenity areas, fagades, and site layout, and configuration will be carefully considered through the submission of detailed design plans and drawings. The site planning process will also include a development agreement which will ensure the long-term maintenance and upkeep of the site. Site Plan Control will be used in accordance with the Planning Act as a means of achieving a well-designed, functional, accessible, and sustainable built form. Planning staff are proposing to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in the recommended zoning in two ways: with a special regulation provision to reduce vehicle parking and increase bicycle stalls. 2-6 Kitchener Growth Management Strategy The Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS) helps to ensure that growth is managed effectively to achieve the required density and intensification targets, through a desired built form and function which will enhance the quality of life in Kitchener. The Kitchener Growth Management Plan (KGMP) is based on the principle that maximizing the use of existing infrastructure is preferred and that planning for, and implementing, intensification is a high priority. Planning Staff's recommendation is in compliance with the KGMS and the Kitchener Growth Management Plan (KGMP) by supporting appropriate intensification that better utilizes the existing infrastructure while ensuring that any future development be compatible and complementary to the existing neighbourhood, while bringing new residents into a stable community. Zoning By-law 85-1 & Recommended Zoning By-law Amendment The Residential Eight (R-8) zone permits multiple dwellings with a FSR between 0.6 and 2.0, and a maximum height of 24.0 metres, among other regulations. Planning staff are recommending changing the zoning of 39 Avon Road from Residential Three (R-3) to Residential Eight (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 752R. Secondly, it is recommended that the zoning of 859 and 867 Frederick Street is amended by adding Special Regulation Provision 752R. Planning staff is recommending site-specific zoning to provide additional direction that will guide future development. Special Regulation Provision 752R applies the following site specific zoning regulations: • A minimum setback of 58 metres from 45 Avon Road except for buildings that are one storey in height. • A maximum building height of 10 storeys or 33.75 metres. • A minimum setback of 3.8 metres form the closest street line for any surface parking. • A requirement for a visual barrier between any surface parking area and Avon Road. • A minimum setback of 3.0 metres from Avon Road for any portion of building 4 storeys or less, a minimum 5.0 metre setback from Avon Road for any portion of building more than 4 storeys and less than 10 storeys in height, and a 7.0 metre setback from Avon Road for any portion of building of a building that is 10 storeys. • A 9.0 metre minimum setback from 843 Frederick Street. • An off street parking rate of 1.2 spaces/unit. • A minimum of 0.5 secured bicycle stalls/unit • A minimum of 6 visitor bicycle stalls/lot. The proposed setback of 58 metres from 45 Avon Road except for buildings, or portions thereof, that are one storey in height is to ensure that the bulk of the building mass is located along Frederick Street and away form the lower rise portion of the neighbourhood. It is intended that exit stairs form the underground parking level required by the Ontario Building Code and any outdoor amenity features required by the Urban Design Manual would not be subject to the 58 metre setback. A regulation is proposed to increase the maximum building height to 10 storeys and 33.75 metres. The height proposed exceeds the 24.0 metres height limit in the Residential Eight Zone (R-8). As the building exceeds nine storeys, the City's Design for Tall Building Guidelines (TBG) section of the Urban Design manual will apply (as discussed below). A regulation to provide a minimum setback of 3.8 metres from the closest street line for any surface parking is to ensure that adequate landscaping can be provided along Avon Road to buffer the parking area. A visual barrier will also be required in this location. This is discussed below in the Community Input and Staff Responses section of this report. 2-7 Stepbacks are proposed from Avon Road to regulate that the proposed stepping in the building mass. The ground oriented townhouse dwellings along Avon Road are permitted within 3.0 metres of the street line. Taller portions of the building require additional setback from Avon Road. Similarly, a 9.0 metre minimum setback is required from 843 Frederick Street. The proposed amending by-law includes provisions for reduced parking and increased bicycle stalls and facilities which align with the recently approved rates in Section 5 of the new Zoning By-law 2019- 051 (CRoZBy). The proposed vehicle parking rate of 1.2 spaces/unit aligns closely with the new residential parking rates approved as part of the new Zoning By-law. The parking rates for a multiple dwelling in a RES zone in the new Zoning By-law is a minimum of 1.15 spaces/unit including 0.15 spaces/unit visitor and a maximum of 1.4 spaces/unit. Additionally, under the new Zoning By-law, a minimum of 0.5 bicycle stalls/unit is required in a secured location and a minimum of 6 visitor parking spaces is required per lot. The bicycle stalls rates are proposed to be included in the site specific zoning as well. Design for Tall Building Guidelines Planning staff have reviewed the original proposal and the revised development concept for compliance with the newly approved Urban Design Manual and provided advice through the development review process which led to the refinement of the proposed built form. The final development concept was reviewed using the Design for Tall Building Guidelines (TBGs). While the (TBGs) were approved by Kitchener City Council after the applications were received, these guidelines were relied on in the review of the final development proposal. Planning staff utilized the guidelines to inform change to the tower placement, stepbacks, and base design. The building is a large slab, which requires significant design measures to reduce the visual impact of the mass. Careful consideration was given to the base of the building. The corner of the building facing Avon Road and Frederick Street has four storey townhouses that cascade to two storeys townhouses toward the existing low-rise residential uses in the neighbourhood. The base along Avon Road features ground oriented housing that has direct access to the street, creating a human -scaled relationship to the adjacent public realm. With respect to separation, based on the height and length of the proposed tower, a minimum 8.8 metre separation distance is recommended by the TBGs. Special Regulation Provision 752R requires a 9.0 mere setback from 831 Frederick Street, and a 58 metre setback from 45 Avon Road. The TBGs suggest a step back of 3.0 metres for the tower portion of a building (from its base) along any street -facing elevation, except where zoning may require otherwise. The stepback from the base along Avon Road is proposed to be 2.0 metres for floors 5-9, and additional 2.0 metres for floor ten. The placement of the tower on the site, and the articulation of the east elevations (not a flush wall), means that the intent of this guideline is met for most of the tower for floors 3-9 except for the corners. The TBGs require using setbacks and stepbacks to make tall buildings compatible. These stepbacks are also regulated through Special Use Provision 752R. Reports, Studies and Technical Memos The following Reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: • Planning Justification Report • Urban Design Brief 2-8 • Shadow Impact Study • Building Elevations, Renderings, and Angular Plane Analysis • Preliminary Site Plan and Underground Parking Plan • Functional Servicing Report • Water Distribution Report • Preliminary Tree Management Plan • Environmental Noise Assessment • Parking Justification and TDM Plan Department and Agency Comments: A copy of all comments received from the commenting agencies and City departments are attached as Appendix "D". Some comments are discussed in greater detail throughout this report, but in summary, there are no outstanding concerns with the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. Additional consideration or concerns will be addressed through the site development approval process. Community Input and Staff Responses: Planning staff received written submissions which are attached as Appendixes "E", "F", and "G". Comments were received immediately following the initial circulation in July 2015 and following the Neighbourhood Information Meetings (NIM) held on January 12, 2017 and November 21, 2018. The development proposal evolved throughout the process in response to resident, City, and agency comments. Additional information on the comments received from community members during the consultation on these applications is described in greater detail below. Planning staff received three different development concepts through the consultation process, each responding to public, City, and agencies comments. The initial development concept refers to the original submission with the application in 2015. The revised development concept refers to the concept that was received following the initial circulation and presented at the first NIM. The final development concept refers to the development proposal that was prepared between the two NIMs and is being recommended by Planning Staff. For reference, a table of the changes between the 3 development concepts is provided and discussed in the sections below. 2-9 Initial Revised Final Development Development Development Concept Concept Concept Building Height (storeys) 12 10 10 Building Height metres 35.Om + parapet 32.75m with parapet 33.75m with parapet Residential, Residential & Uses LiveiWork, & Commercial Residential Commercial Type of Residential Use Multiple Dwelling & Multiple Dwelling & Multiple Dwelling & LiveiWork Townhouses Townhouses Floor Space Ratio 2.20 1.86 1.984 Residential Units 129 + 5 LiveiWork 113 122 Frederick Street Setback 4.5m 4.1 m 4.Om Avon Road Setback 5.578m 3.093m 3.Om Avon Road Stepbacks No Yes Yes 2-9 Avon Road Landscape 2.5m (approx.) 3.Om 3.8m Buffer Access to Avon Road Yes, 2 No No Comparison Table: Three Development Concepts Building Height & Shadow Impacts & Privacy Planning staff received comments on the proposed building height and shadow impacts of the initial development concept. Most respondents were opposed to any increase in height and some commented that the currently permitted height of eight storeys was too high for their community. Some residents expressed concern for the potential of the loss of privacy with the introduction of a taller building in their community. A revised development concept was prepared in response to community and staff comments regarding height and compatibility. Following the initial circulation and presented at the first NIM, the revised development concept had a height reduction from 35 metres to 32.75 metres, and from 12 to 10 storeys. The revised development concept also featured units which front onto Avon Road and new stepbacks were introduced to the tower portion. Building height was still identified as a concern by community members at the first NIM. Following that meeting, the final development concept was prepared that retained the 10 storey design, and extended the ground oriented townhouse along Avon Road (up to 31 Avon Road), buffering the surface parking area and providing a continuous built form along the street edge. Planning staff are supportive of the final development concept and are recommending approval of Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications as outlined in the report. The attached Urban Design Brief includes images of the final development concept and an updated preliminary site plan. The final development concept meets the TBG for shadow impacts, as there is at least five cumulative hours of direct sunlight to nearby sidewalks on the opposite side of the right of way (Frederick Street and Avon Road) for both the March and September equinoxes. The shadow analysis for the final development concept is attached as Appendix "H". This type of compact development is anticipated and needed to accommodate growth while preserving stable low density residential communities. The final development concept meets the intent of the TBGs, which provide direction for evaluating tall buildings and the relationship of tall buildings with the surrounding community. The TBGs provide direction for compatibility of tall buildings and their surroundings. Implementing setbacks from property lines and stepbacks between the podium, tower, and top features are important to achieve an appropriate transition. As noted above, the buildings have been pushed to Frederick Street and a 58 metre setback is proposed from the next dwelling on Avon Road. The base of the building provides a ground oriented residential interface along Avon Road. The TBGs also require that tall buildings implement design cues from surrounding built form and to utilize a contemporary architectural style. Planning staff are recommending that Council endorse the attached Urban Design Brief which provides further direction for the site planning stage regarding building materials and design. Access onto Avon Road Several community residents expressed concern about an increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development, as well as concern about the two driveway accesses to Avon Road. 2-10 The initial development concept had two accesses to Avon Road and no access to Frederick Street. In consultation with the Region of Waterloo, City Transportation staff requested that the only access to the property be from Frederick Street. The revised development concept shown at the first NIM included the change to the access. The final development concept also shows an access from Frederick Street only. Existing and Potential Traffic Increase in the Community Planning staff received several comments at all engagement stages about the current traffic situation in their community. Many community members expressed a concern that drivers are cutting through their neighbourhood, using Manchester Road, Avon Road, and Frederick Street to travel from River Road East to Victoria Street North. Transportation conducted traffic calming reviews for Avon Road and Manchester Road and these streets were not within the highest priority. Manchester Road is tentatively ranked 19th on the City's Traffic Calming Priority listing and was last studied this year (2019). Avon Road, from 2018 data, would not be eligible for traffic calming due to being below the volume and speed thresholds. River Road East is also not eligible for traffic calming because it is designated an Arterial Roadway. River Road East was last counted in 2017. The intersection of River Road East and Manchester Road is becoming a signalized intersection as warranted by recent study, and accepted by Kitchener City Council. The Region of Waterloo will oversee the installation and it should be completed in the Spring of 2020. Parking on both sides of the street is proposed to remain for now. New no parking signs will be installed near driveways and intersections in the Spring of 2020 to increase visibility for cars entering the street, and to create larger sections where cars can pass each other (sections where parking is not allowed on both sides of the street). Once that work is installed, Transportation Staff are going to continue to monitor to see if additional changes are required and warranted. Condition of the Property Comments were also received regarding the condition of the property and buildings at 859 and 867 Frederick Street. Each time a complaint was received, Planning staff notified the appropriate contact person (Building Inspector, By-law Enforcement, and Development Engineering staff) to have the concern addressed. Commercial Uses The initial and revised development concept each had a non-residential commercial component as part of the development. Planning staff are generally supportive of mixed-use buildings that support a community. The initial development application included 5 live/work units and some commercial space. The revised development application included 5 commercial spaces on the ground floor. In response to comments received from the community with respect to the proposed commercial uses, the final development concept does not contain any non-residential uses. The owner has advised that they will not be seeking additional land use permissions for non-commercial uses. As such, the recommended amending Zoning By-law does not contain a Special Use Provision to permit any additional non-residential uses. Planning staff note that the subject lands are adjacent to an Arterial Commercial Corridor along Victoria Street North. 2-11 On -Street Parking Comments were received regarding current on -street parking concerns, specifically with on -street parking demands generated by religious institutions in the community. There was also concern regarding emergency access with the addition of school bus vehicles traveling within the community. Planning staff worked with By-law Enforcement and Fire staff to monitor the streets in the community during peak times. On two separate occasions, once immediately following a significant snowfall event with high snow banks, Kitchener Fire staff drove a fire truck through the neighbourhood on a Friday afternoon to ensure that emergency access could be maintained. Fire and Transportation staff confirmed that there was no concern and that emergency access can be maintained even in scenarios were cars are parked on both sides of the streets. Planning staff also conducted several site visits over the course of the application and have observed on -street parking conditions on Friday afternoons and Sunday mornings. On -street parking observations were shared with Transportation staff who will continue to monitor the situation independent of the current applications. Off -Street Parking Residents expressed concern about the proposed parking reduction requested with this application. Zoning By-law 85-1 requires 1.5 spaces/unit for multiple dwelling in this location. The initial application requested a parking rate of 1.25 spaces per residential unit plus 15 parking spaces for live/work units and 5 parking spaces for commercial space (1/40sq.m commercial floor area). The revised development concept proposed the same parking rate for the commercial and residential units, but the live/work units were removed. The final development concept provides a parking rate of 1.2 spaces per residential unit and all commercial uses were eliminated. Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 contains new parking regulations for developments in the City, but those regulations have not yet been applied to this property. The requested parking rate of 1.2 spaces/unit aligns with the new parking rates approved in the new Zoning By-law. The City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) objectives support and enhance sustainable transportation choices and discourage single occupant vehicle trips to reduce traffic congestion, parking supply needs, and demand for parking spaces by encouraging various modes of travel. The site specific zoning incorporates a requirement for secured and visitor bicycle stall rates, ensuring that the bicycle stalls proposed as a TDM measure to support the requested parking rate will be enforced at the site planning stage. Property Value A few property owners questioned whether the proposed development would have an impact on their property values. It is difficult for planning staff to comment accurately on the impact that a proposed development may have on the value of nearby homes. Staff understand that MPAC assesses homes based on as many as 200 different factors ranging from the size of the house/lot, and their location, to the number of bathrooms and quality of the construction. Market values depend on a host of different factors including the state of the economy and the individual purchaser's preferences. While planning staff recognize that property value may be an important consideration for some individual residents, it is not a land use planning matter. Planning staff focus on whether the development is good planning with respect to the community and the City as a whole. 2-12 Design Some respondents expressed concern about the appearance of the various development concepts, with respect to style, character, and materials. Urban Design staff also provided comments with the building massing, and support the final development concept that addresses Avon Road with ground oriented housing and stepbacks for upperfloors of the tower. Through the Site Plan process, the design of the buildings will be considered in greater detail. Materials, finishes, and detailed design elements that are found throughout the neighbourhood will be encouraged for the buildings to ensure compatible design. Lighting, landscape design and materials, amenity areas, fagades, roof designs, and site layout, and configuration will be carefully considered through the submission of detailed design plans and drawings. The proposed specific zoning regulations are being recommended to ensure that any future buildings are accommodated within a building envelope discussed in the attached Urban Design Brief. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No new or additional capital budget requests are associated with these recommendations COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — The Official Plan amendment and Zone Change application were circulated for comment to internal departments, external agencies, and all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands on July 8, 2015. Community members hand delivered additional notices in the community beyond the 120 metre radius. A list of interested residents was updated throughout the application process. Written responses from property owners and interested parties are attached as Appendixes "E", "F", and "G" and are discussed in this report. This report will be posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. Notice signs are posted on the property and additional notice signs were posted in advance of the two Neighbourhood Information Meetings. A letter advising of the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (Statutory Public Meeting) and the scheduled Council meeting will be sent to everyone who participated in the process and all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. CONSULT — Two Neighbourhood Information Meetings were held on January 12, 2017 and November 21, 2018. Notice of the public meeting will appear in The Record on December 6, 2019. CONCLUSION: Community input was gathered at a Neighbourhood Information Meetings which resulted in several changes to the proposal. The development proposal evolved with input from community members, City staff, and commenting agencies over the past four years. Provincial, Regional, and City planning policy provide guidance that must be considered when evaluating changes in land use permissions. Planning staff are of the opinion that the additional two storeys, coupled with the site specific policy area and zoning regulations, will result in a development 2-13 that will not have adverse impacts on the community. While different from the current built form, existing permissions and the planned function of lands along Frederick Street must be considered when evaluating the appropriateness of the application. There are ongoing concerns in the community with respect to cut through traffic that will continue to be evaluated though the City's Traffic Calming Review work program. On -street parking will continue to be evaluated by By-law and Transportation staff. There have been changes to the development concept that have tried to address community, agency, and City comments, but it is understood that not all suggestions or comments are being implemented verbatim with Planning Staff's recommendation. Planning staff is of the opinion that the recommended Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are in the public interest and strive to balance various interests; the multi-level legislative planning framework, the planned function of the community and the City, input from the community's residents, and the need to provide new residential uses within the Built Up area. The proposed setbacks aim to create a buffer from the adjacent low rise residential form, and the ground oriented townhouse units offer a transition into the established community along Avon Road. The proposed development would bring additional housing choice to the community and will provide new dwelling units within an established neighbourhood. Based on this analysis, Planning staff is recommending approval of the application as outlined in Appendix "A" and "B" of this report. REVIEWED BY: Della Ross, Interim Director of Planning ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Appendix "A" Proposed OPA and OPA Map & Newspaper Notice Appendix "B" Proposed Zoning By-law & Map No. 1 Appendix "C" Urban Design Brief & Final Development Concept Appendix "D" Department/Agency Comments Appendix "E" Community Input — Initial Development Concept Appendix "F" Community Input — Revised Development Concept Appendix "G" Community Input — Final Development Concept Appendix "H" Shadow Study 2-14 AMENDMENT NO. ## TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER Frederick Street and Avon Road DSD -20-002 Appendix "A" 2-15 DSD -20-002 Appendix "A" AMENDMENT NO. ## TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER Frederick Street and Avon Road WINIM - 61110101 I I I IWO 011eZKe]►Ti11i7►1N1►101 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 January 13, 2020 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee — January 13, 2020 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — January 27, 2020 2-16 AMENDMENT NO. ## TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. ## 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 change the land use designation and amend Map 3 as well as to add a site specific policy area and amend Map 5 to permit the development of the subject lands with a ten storey multiple dwelling. The amendment comprises of the following changes: • Map 3 is amended by changing the land use designation from Low Rise Residential to Medium Rise Residential, • Map 5 is amended by adding Specific Policy Area 52, • Adding Policy 15.D.12.52 to Section 15.D.12 to permit a maximum building height of 10 storeys and 33.75 metres: o Specific Policy 15.D.12.52 amends one policy in the Medium Rise Residential land use designation: ■ Policy 15.D.3.19 is amended to permit a maximum building height of 10 storeys and 33.75 metres. SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT The subject lands are currently designated as Low Rise Residential (39 Avon Road) and Medium Rise Residential (859 & 867 Frederick). Planning staff are recommending that the land use designation for the subject lands be amended to Medium Rise Residential with Site Specific Policy Area 52. The Medium Rise Residential land use designation is applied to lands that are planned to accommodate a range of medium density housing types including townhouse dwellings in a cluster development, multiple dwellings and special needs housing. A minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 will apply to all development and redevelopment. No building will exceed 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is the lesser, at the highest grade elevation. Site Specific Policy Area 52 is intended to ensure that any future building is compatible. The proposed permissions would permit an additional two storeys of building height, for a total of 10 storeys and 33.75 metres. The lands are identified as a Community Area in the Official Plan. 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. Lands within Community Areas may be designated as Low Rise Residential, Medium Rise Residential, High Rise Residential, Open Space, Institutional and/or Major Infrastructure and Utilities. Limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in accordance with the applicable land use designation and the Urban Design Policies in the Official Plan. The proposed development must be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context. 2-17 The Official Plan Supports 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 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. The Official Plan contains policies to consider when a site-specific zoning regulation is proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands. The overall impact of the special zoning regulations will be reviewed by the City to ensure; — That any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood, — That new buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties, and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy, and — That the lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. The proposed additional height will result in a building that is appropriate in massing and scale and is compatible with the built form and the community character of the community. The lands addressed as 39 Avon Road would be used to calculate the total FSR of the future building, however it is recognized that this portion of the consolidated lands should not be the area where additional building mass is located. While the lands addressed as 39 Avon Road are proposed to be redesignated from Low Rise Residential to Medium Rise Residential, the bulk of the building mass will be positioned along Frederick Street and away from the stable residential neighbourhood. While the building height is proposed to be increased by two storeys and 8 metres in height, the overall total FSR is not proposed to be increased beyond what is permitted in the Medium Rise Residential land use designation. In accordance with Policy 15.D.3.18, a minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 will apply to all development and redevelopment. The proposed development is sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and appropriate screening and buffering will be provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. Special Regulation Provision 752R includes a policy that requires a 58 metres setback from 45 Avon Road for any building, or portion thereof, greater than one storey in height. The only buildings proposed located within the setback are emergency exit stairs for the underground parking level and any proposed amenity areas. The landscaping along west side yard will accommodate a visual barrier buffering from 831 Frederick Street. A setback of 9.0 metres is also proposed from 831 Frederick Street to provide separation from the existing single detached dwelling, but also to ensure separation between the proposed building and any future redevelopment on those lands. A walkway and landscape buffer is also proposed along the south property line, providing buffering to 45 Avon Street. The recommended site specific zoning also require a 3.8 metre landscape buffer along Avon Road to buffer the surface parking from 38 and 46 Avon Road (across the street). The site can function appropriately and does not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties. Planning Staff are recommending a reduced off-street parking rate of 1.2 spaces/unit including visitor. It is recognized that on -street parking demands currently exist in the community at peaks times, so Planning Staff are recommending maintaining the 20% visitor parking in Zoning By- law 85-1, rather than reducing it is 15% (or 0.15 spaces/unit) in the new Zoning By-law. The preliminary site plan provides on-site amenity space as well as a direct connection to the adjacent Rosemount Park. The redevelopment of the site will also increase visibility into Rosemount Park, and a publically accessible access is also proposed from Avon Road to the park over the subject lands. 2-18 Planning Staff is of the opinion that Official Plan Amendment is in compliance with the Kitchener Growth Management Strategy by supporting appropriate intensification that better utilizes the existing infrastructure while ensuring that any future development be compatible and complementary to the existing neighbourhood, while bringing new residents into a stable community. The applications align with Provincial, Regional, and City policies and will contribute to the community. Planning staff are of the opinion that the additional two storeys, coupled with the site specific policy area and zoning regulations, will result in a development that will not have adverse impacts on the community. Planning staff is of the opinion that the Official Plan Amendment conform to the Growth Plan. The development of the subject lands with a more intense residential use within the City's delineated built up area, represent intensification and will help the City to meet density targets. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested applications are consistent with the policies and intent of the Provincial Policy Statement. The proposed Official Plan Amendment will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a more intensive residential use that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make use of the existing infrastructure. 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 intensification on the subject lands. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Urban Area policies in the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. This area contains the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support major growth, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply systems and municipal wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. It is also well -served by the existing Regional transit system. For these reasons, lands within the Urban Area have the greatest capacity to accommodate growth and serve as the primary focus for employment, housing, cultural and recreational opportunities in the region. Planning staff are recommending changing the zoning of 39 Avon Road from Residential Three (R-3) to Residential Eight (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 752R. Secondly, it is recommended that the zoning of 859 and 867 Frederick Street is amended by adding Special Regulation Provision 752R. Special Regulation Provision 752R applies the following site specific zoning regulations: • A minimum setback of 58 metres from 45 Avon Road except for buildings that are one storey in height. • A maximum building height of 10 storeys or 33.75 metres. • A minimum setback of 3.8 metres form the closest streetline for any surface parking. • A requirement for a visual barrier between any surface parking area and Avon Road. • A minimum setback of 3.0 metres from Avon Road for any portion of building 4 storeys or less, a minimum 5.0 metre setback from Avon Road for any portion of building more than 4 storeys and less than 10 storeys in height, and a 7.0 metre setback from Avon Road for any portion of building of a building that is 10 storeys. • A 9.0 metre minimum setback from 843 Frederick Street. • An off street parking rate of 1.2 spaces/unit. • A minimum of 0.5 secured bicycle spaces/unit. • A minimum of 6 visitor bicycle spaces/lot. 2-19 SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: a) Part D, Section 15.D.12 is amended by adding Site Specific Policy Area 15.D.12.52 as follows: 15.D.12.52. Frederick Street and Avon Road Notwithstanding the Medium Rise residential land use designation and policies, on the lands municipally known as 39 Avon Road and 859 and 867 Frederick Street, a maximum building height of 10 storeys and 33.75 metres will be permitted." b) Amend Map No. 3 — Land Use by: i) Designating the lands municipally addressed as 39 Avon Road `Medium Rise Residential' instead of `Low Rise Residential', as shown on the attached Schedule W. c) Amend Map No. 5 — Specific Policy Areas by: i) Adding Specific Policy Area 52 to the subject lands as shown on the attached Schedule `B'. 6 2-20 APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of January 13, 2020 Advertised in The Record — December 6, 2019 PROPERTY OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENT TO THE KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW UNDER SECTIONS 17,22 AND 34 OF THE PLANNING ACT 39 Avon Road and 858 and 867 Frederick Street Milan Kovacevic, Dean Kovacevic, & Keystone Property Developments Inc. is proposing Official Plan and Zoning By- law Amendments to permit the lands at 39 Avon Road and 858 and 867 Frederick Street to be developed with a ten storey multiple dwelling. The public meeting will be held by the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee, a Committee of Council which deals with planning matters, on: MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2020 at 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2nd FLOOR, CITY HALL 200 KING STREET WEST, KITCHENER. Any person may attend the public meeting and make written and/or verbal representation either in support of, or in opposition to, the above noted proposal. If a person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of the City of Kitchener to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, but the person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Kitchener prior to approval/refusal of the proposal, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is available by contacting the staff person noted below, viewing the staff report contained in the agenda (available approximately 10 days before the meeting - https:Hcalendar.kitchener.ca/council - click on the date in the calendar, scroll down & select meeting), or in person at the Planning Division, 6th Floor, City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener between 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday to Friday). Garett Stevenson, Senior Planner- 519-741-2200 ext.7070 (TTY: 1-866-969-9994) garett.stevenson @kitchener.ca 2-21 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee — January 13, 2020 2-22 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — January 27, 2020 2-23 DSD -20-002 Appendix "A" 2-24 LU -Fu cu • LU • c CL U)• • • • • Ln E• • • • LLI LLI ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■q■■■■■■■■■■■■■ LLI MEN No LLI 0 '��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■@■■■mill■■■■ Immommommom .0000000M "MomEll • #■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ' 'III I'■■■■m■■■■■■■■■■■q■■■■■■m■■■■■■■■ 1■■m■■■■■■■■■■■■d•�•pp�2s■■■■■ .. III 1 1�'..■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■..■■■■■ 1 1 1 I\■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■\■■■■■■■■■■■ �Lw■■■■■■NEEM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MENEENEEMEN �'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m■■■ • I �7■■■■■■■■■■■■■■'9!■m■■■ II I IIIII "w I:::::::::::::L7pP::::::::m III 1IIIIII I ��EEEE■EEEEEEEE��nEEEEEEEE■ 7■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ . II I I IIIII EMENEENEMENNEN■ I I II � ..■■■■■■■■..■■!■■■■..■■■■■ . I II 11 III I 1■EEEEEEEE■■EEEnEEEE■EEE • 1E■■■■■■■■EEEEEE■0000■ iIl I IIIII I III`'MENEEMENEEN ::::::■ . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1�■°°°°°°°°°°°°°�°°°�■ •• �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:ti..■■■■■■■..■■.■■■■■ • • III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,■■■■■■■..■■■■■■■■■■■ ■............................ • ■■■■■■■■■■■■Nm■■■■6■■■M■■■■■■■ ■ HH! iimL ��A■■■■m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mE■■■■■■ w■■■■■■■■■■■■■q■■:■■■■■m■MEMO■■ , 1! 1 1 1! 1 `■■■■■■■■■■■■■Ri■■■■■■m■■■■■■■■ 2-24 DSD -20-002 Appendix "A" TO z o (n 0)' Lf) LL^^ LL o E L/ M QLO d W 06 LO a WcQ p z z C Q LL L VO/� / W Q 0 Q V L C9 Ua0V °' z `-''L a Q z L N m —j —j c +' ami O N YQz0 °� a� � d� H La LL M � Q +r LE l,- Z z Q% � W z 00zLL a E L E Qo o �wU a a)o moU� oz sQ W °) N m z W a U Q d O E m co E Q co w 4.1o cn d N N 4 H� Q Y w Z c z �0 Q L J J O W cn Q a � � � z LLI U_ z_ V a O LL zw O NN o 0 w U) w r O N 0 L N (V U) w LLI O m F- O 04 L 0 Z O 0 w -� U o 7 Q esti �� LU o w k4 >0GU Y LU U LUcl J p p Z 0� OzU)2 LLO k WJwO(Q l = — YJpo� V2ULuOM >w z k QC)0 rn U N LO J � co Q o 2-25 DSD -20-002 Appendix B PROPOSED BY — LAW November 27, 2019 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 - Milan Kovacevic, Dean Kovacevic, & Keystone Property Developments Inc.) 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 178 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 Residential Eight Zone (R-8) to Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 752R. 2. Schedule Number 178 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 Residential Three Zone (R-3) to Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 752R. 3. Schedule Number 178 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 Section 752 thereto as follows: "752. Notwithstanding Sections 6.1.1.2.a) 6.1.2a), and 42.2.5 of this By-law, within the lands zoned Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 752R, shown as affected by this subsection, on Schedule 178 of Appendix "A", a multiple dwelling shall be permitted in accordance with the following: 2-26 a. The minimum yard abutting the property municipally addressed as 45 Avon Road, for any building or portion thereof, greater than one storey in height, shall be 58.0 metres. b. That the maximum building height shall be 10 storeys and 33.75 metres. C. That the minimum setback for surface parking shall be 3.8 metres from Avon Road streetline. d. A visual barrier shall be required between any surface parking and Avon Road streetline. e. That the minimum yard abutting Frederick Street shall be 4.0 metres. f. That the minimum yard abutting from Avon Road shall be 3.0 metres. g. That the minimum setback from Avon Road shall be 5.0 metres for any portion of a building greater than four storeys and less than ten storeys. h. That the minimum setback from Avon Road shall be 7.0 metres for the tenth storey portion of a building. i. That the minimum yard abutting the property municipally addressed as 843 Frederick Street shall be 9.0 metres. j. A minimum of 0.5 bicycle parking spaces, which is either in a building or structure or within a secure area such as a supervised parking lot or enclosure with a secure entrance or within a bicycle locker, per dwelling unit shall be provided. k. A minimum of 6 bicycle parking spaces, which are located in accessible and highly visible locations near the entrance of a building and are accessible to the general public, shall be provided. I. The off-street parking rate shall be 1.2 spaces per unit, inclusive of 0.2 visitor parking spaces per unit." 5. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _ (859 and 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road) 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 2020 Mayor Clerk 2-27 Z w _ O� 7noaH-V O0 LOLO r ` m Z 0 NN r— r - z z O ch O_ N J W .-. U) `-' 00 >W d' (n a0 > UJ 0 Z Z d W U Owa Nwa N N Z ZW Z Z SOD W 00 2 N — N Q Q Q Q ~ W = = _j Q W _j Q W U) W W LU -J -J W �0��E I>X WU W QQ W 0 � wU �wU U LU Z=� W0 W Fn U) W 0 W m O LLJ O W 2 W LLJ W 0 O 2 U) z O H H Q� Q� QOZUZ W W W W W � m + DSD -20-002 Appendix "B" 4 7n HOS ' b w _ O� 7noaH-V O0 f S r ` m Z 0 NN J J C) EL LL 0 z O w J LL� pox L, E N J W N LL m W Z O Z 0 N d W U Cn N 00 W W LLI Z Z O (n J Q Z H Z O z 0 w O Zcn QHONONzLL, N0 N Q ~ LL Ur J w U UcnHJN OZ �ZOQJwNOZH H�Q�WNW2 U) w 0 lid LL m W (7 00 W �0��E I>X WU ~ 0 Lr) (� Z Z Z=� A. Of LO O LL w0X0 J J J J J ����< < < < < z W o Q 0W0� QOZUZ W W W W W UN d m N (L ALA++Q Wa WZ trm0— wx�>000000 O0- UJ W 0W IL 2 QfW O W W W W W W W Z /=/���z W W Z 2 Q U Q Z U (n 2 IL' IL' IL' IL' IL' ❑� WC Z af O U- H N(n0Y (fl N (h V m Lf� (O I� W U--������� G wwC 'i♦ vQ 0 IZ G 4.0 IL UJ 0 U d 4 7n HOS ' b i_ \+ \ v Y _ O� 7noaH-V O0 f S r ` m Z 0 NN J J C) EL LL 0 •— z U CD • N 1 d 0 o N 3 , ^ti Cl) a�M U w 0 � 0 w co A` �y V2'7 LOW O w > co A. oo�Go J Z w W U CO 0) g a) W W o �? U d > I SOD w 0) M ' y`r 0<0 Z W 1 Q 0 w Y z w Q _ Q 5; U o 0 w > LL 04 w Z co co 0 d z�- Z w � 2-28 May, 2015 (updated November 2019) DSD -20-002 Ap Urban Design Brief For: Milan Kovacevic By: Labreche Patterson & Associates Inc. 330-F Trillium Drive Kitchener, Ontario N2E 3.12 P: 519-896-5955 F: 519-896-5355 Prepared by: Scott J. Patterson, BA, CPT, MCIP, RPP Ll •• Our File: P-667-13 1wA9 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Area Description 2.1 Subject lands 2.2 Surrounding Area 3.0 Design Vision and Objectives 4.0 Policy and Design Framework 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement 4.2 Places to Grow—Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 4.3 Regional Official Policies Plan 4.4 Regional Official Plan 4.5 City of Kitchener Official Plan 4.6 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 4.7 Required Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments 5.0 Specific Guidelines 5.1 City of Kitchener Municipal Plan 5.2 New City of Kitchener Official Plan 5.3 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual 6.0 Design Principles and Guidelines 6.1 Amenity Areas 6.2 City of Waterloo Urban Design Guidelines 6.3 Lighting 6.4 Site Circulation 6.5 Emergency Access 6.6 Building Massing 6.7 Parking Structure 6.8 Intensification 6.9 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 7.0 Conclusion DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" 1 3 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 15 20 26 33 33 34 34 35 36 37 37 37 38 2-30 DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" This Urban Design Brief has been prepared by Labreche Patterson & Associates Inc., with the assistance of R. Tome & Associate Inc. on behalf of the Milan and Deane Kovacevic and Keystone Developments Inc. The Urban Design Brief has been prepared in support of the joint Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications for the redevelopment of the lands at 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road, to be addressed as 867 Frederick Street, and the subsequent formal Site Plan submission. 2.1 Subject Lands The subject lands are located at the corner of Frederick Street and Avon Road, in close proximity to the intersection of Victoria Street and Frederick Street which is located directly northeast. The lands are generally flat with a single detached dwelling currently existing on each property. The total lot area is 5604.79 square metres. Air Photo (Region of Waterloo) '`int •, ,a t._�ikf�.,, ,if. , - - - • � I ~':� .r.�•• �, �..� Lam` � � �� �+-1���' �� t`` '- !T kikr,yt rte„ ,I J. J ,.•v 4 � t '`int •, ,a t._�ikf�.,, ,if. , - - - • � I ~':� .r.�•• �, �..� Lam` � � �� �+-1���' �� t`` '- !T kikr,yt rte„ ,I J. J ,.•v 2.2 Surrounding Area DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" The surrounding properties include single detached dwellings to the north and west, multi -unit residential, single detached dwellings and commercial uses to the east, and various commercial and residential uses to the north. The existing Official Plan designates the properties in proximity to the subject site as "Arterial Commercial Corridor", "Low Rise Residential", "Medium Rise Residential", and "Heavy Industrial". The surrounding zoning consists of industrial, commercial and institutional zones to the north and east, other "R8" zoned lands to the west, and "RY and institutional zoned lands to the south. South of the subject lands exists a public park and a School property. Photos: (Clockwise) Triplex dwellings at 31 & 35 Avon Road; institutional and residential uses to the east; Victoria Street commercial corridor to the east; commercial and residential uses to the north; apartment building to the west; apartment buildings to the west; low density residen- tial to the south; School and Rosemount Park grounds to the south DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" In context of the surrounding area, the subject lands are topographically a low point, with drainage routes utilizing the subject lands as they currently exist. The area to the north and east is commercialized and more in kind to the Victoria Street corridor characteristics, meanwhile west along Frederick Street is a more traditional mid rise residential neighbourhood, and to the south exists an established low density residential neighbourhood. Victoria Street is classified as a Primary Arterial Road and Frederick Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial Road. A Primary Multi -Use Pathway/Connection is located to the south of the subject site, allowing for alternative modes of transportation to access the north, south and downtown of Kitchener. Further, Frederick Street is a Planned Transit Corridor and Victoria Street is an Urban Corridor. A Community Node exists just west of the subject lands, and a Neighbourhood Node exists to the south. City of Kitchener New Official Plan Urban Structure Map DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" Notable destinations within convenient walking distance include: • Recreation: Rosemount Park is located directly behind the subject lands • Grocery store: the Healthy Haven -1.1 kilometres, a 14 minute walk away; • Pharmacy: -900m a 1 1 minute walk • Financial institution: -1.2 kilometres, a 14 minute walk • Restaurants: along Victoria Street, closest being -280 metres, a 3 minute walk • Convenience retail: -300m, a 4 minute walk In addition, the site is in close proximity to 2 bus routes: • Route 15: travels east -west with the end points being the Charles Street Terminal and Lackner Boulevard. • Route 23: travels north -south with end points being the Charles Street Terminal and Fairview Park Mall. r q cion 91. C P � 7%4g� FJfe Ave.N=g , BoumemouthAve.ameuntlay outing ERd. ya` ai �Shef _ q. Ct d Fieaiher Ave, '� e , GflrendSd e m ;A Perkelf 1 ■Arrn y 1D SmllfisaF�Q2ana Y q R .�eeulew eneisea aa.'Rndar Cr _ Ave. m (Grand River Transit) e LM n w e p r, V101* Sue 40 L# M R 'tv r R'NIr 4F bay, SC" 600 c p4iila� y '� 7R■ Met (Region of Waterloo) In addition, the site is in close proximity to 2 bus routes: • Route 15: travels east -west with the end points being the Charles Street Terminal and Lackner Boulevard. • Route 23: travels north -south with end points being the Charles Street Terminal and Fairview Park Mall. r q cion 91. C P � 7%4g� FJfe Ave.N=g , BoumemouthAve.ameuntlay outing ERd. ya` ai �Shef _ q. Ct d Fieaiher Ave, '� e , GflrendSd e m ;A Perkelf 1 ■Arrn y 1D SmllfisaF�Q2ana Y q R .�eeulew eneisea aa.'Rndar Cr _ Ave. m (Grand River Transit) e LM DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" The landowner, in collaboration with the project's consultants, has created a development that is accessible, sustainable, and has a high standard of urban design in keeping with the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual and Official Plan policies. The proposed development caters to various user groups, from young professionals to empty nesters seeking to downsize yet remain close to amenities. The landowner is proposing a 10 storey residential development on site. The ground floor of the project is to include residential units and operational building components. Seven (7) townhouse units are proposed along Avon Road. The upper storeys are comprised of residential units. In total, the building provides 88 one -bedroom units, 27 two-bedroom units and the 7 townhouse units for a total of 122 residential units on the property. The residential units can be accessed via exterior building entrances abutting both Frederick Street and the interior parking lot leading to a common lobby area. The site is accessed via one vehicular accesses along Frederick Street. This access will be utilized for deliveries, pick-up and drop-off of residents, and garbage collection. This access also provides the most efficient route to access the underground parking structure. The development provides 63 parking spaces at grade, as well as a loading space and garbage facilities. The underground parking structure is accessed via a ramp interior to the site and provides 84 spaces. The total amount of parking required is 183 spaces however 147 spaces are provided on site and a parking reduction is being sought. Pi mr-finn • The site is designed to include barrier free access, whether it be pedestrian - oriented or vehicle -oriented, to not only the site itself but also the building and all commercial entrances. • The proposed development provides a mix of residential unit types resulting in a variety of uses on one site that will not only benefit the residents of the subject development but also the surrounding area. Further, TDM measures have been contemplated by the landowner, as well as the provision of bicycle parking in excess of by-law requirements. • Through the OPA/ZC process, it was determined that very little of the existing vegetation on site was suitable to be maintained for the new development. However, landscaping in compliance with the City's requirements is to be provided, as well as an on-site pedestrian link through the property to the abutting Rosemount Park for the benefit of all residents on site and the overall neighborhood. • Dedicated pedestrian connections are provided throughout the site. The site lighting and surface treatment will provide distinct routes to guide pedestrians through the site. Order DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" • The site is clearly designed to differentiate the pedestrian realm from the vehicular realm on site. Pedestrian movement is not necessary internal to the site, with access to the building and all units provided directly from both street frontages. The site is clearly defined as to what is public versus what is private space. • The site has been designed to situate the building as close to the intersection of Frederick Street and Avon Road as possible. The location of the building on site is sensitive to the low density residential uses to the south, by locating it as far as possible from these uses. The existing zoning for 39 Avon Road allows for a 3 storey building to be situated abutting the low density residential area. By locating all building mass along the Frederick Street frontage, now abutting the low density area is a parking area which will be buffered accordingly and therefore be less impactful to the neighbouring properties than a building would. The building efficiently utilizes both street frontages by providing residential units and townhouses to aid in creating an active streetscape. • Should the abutting lands along Frederick Street ever be redeveloped, they are zoned to allow for a much higher density than currently provided. Further, Frederick Street is to be reconstructed in the future. This development is the first intensification project along this stretch of Frederick Street and it provides an active streetscape and building frontage that currently does not exist along Frederick Street. Identity • The proposed building varies in massing, materials and uses. The surrounding area is much older and established, and as such the proposed building will be a focal point for the area due to its modernity. Although the building will be distinctive for the area, it pays homage to the existing established area by providing traditional building elements such as a parapet design, and through lighting and material selection. Appeal • The proposed building design is both modern and traditional, with modern elements such as building materials including the glazing style of the balconies and windows along the site facades, and traditional elements such as the lighting fixtures and parapet design. • The proposed building is designed to be mindful of the pedestrian realm by providing articulated facades. The building also provides stepbacks of the upper storeys to lessen the height impacts on the pedestrian realm. Built Form • The proposed development provides an effective transition from the commercial corridor of Victoria Street and the low rise residential neighbourhood to the south. The design of the building is both modern with traditional elements, articulating similarities to the established residential neighbourhood to the rear. • The proposed development is considered to be medium density as much greater densities are permitted elsewhere in the city. The surrounding area is comprised of commercial, mid rise residential and low density residential, and as such providing a medium density project provides an effective transition between the commercial area of Victoria Street and the mid to low rise residential area to the south. Proposed Site Plan Auon Road 1 t� a� hF a FOF r _ H0. — 5 pFR3P�� fiFY T l � tP 5 mSY�EYf/ DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" (R. Tome & Associate Inc.) Proposed Underground Parking Plan r.a &WM TANK 71� S• � 3 _I I I" ^ ' WC �i I J iF iii MP UP i` to G4Api L11111 1111L111"L. (R. Tome & Associate Inc.) 2 X38 tl■��■liil■ii■liil■ii■liiil■ii■liil�ii■liil■ii■liiil W I011 RE Hill Ii■I Iii1 10101 Iiil HNI liil Ii■I Iii1 Iii■ ---• •— ---- •--• ---• 10101 ---• •--• •--- •--. .--. ._._. n ii n ii ■i ii n ini ��I�iim ii !::! ii dill, NUMNlm: 1111111 ME SIMON ME 1111111 No, - .® 'iiI ■i ®i ii ®i is E-I is i■ �i ■ u ■i ■� ■i ■i ■i ■i ■i H ■i ■i ilii II ii ii:i ii ii ii ii ■i ii ■i ii ■_-_: ii �li■ 'Ili ii •�i ii •Ili ii •Ili ii •�i ii •Ili ilii I�� ii mill W 0: ii I:il �I I::I 1� 1:.1 ■: I:■_1 �I i i ii II 1ii11�111��11�■II��IU�■ili�ii�Ili i iii DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" View from Northeast View from Southeast (R. Tome & Associate Inc.) iA f 7�- DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement came into full force and effect on April 30, 2014. All applications submitted after April 30, 2014 shall be consistent with this policy. This document promotes building healthy, livable and safe communities, providing an appropriate mix of different land use types within the community, efficiently using services and facilities, maximizing opportunities for public transit use, and promoting intensification. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement. 4.2 Places to Grow—Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe At the time of application the proposed development complied with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) which was issued in 2006 to manage growth for the Greater Golden Horseshoe area of Ontario. This document endorses intensification and redevelopment of a property for the creation of new units, site or area at a higher density than currently exists; residential densities to support frequent and accessible transit service; pedestrian - friendly built environment along roads to encourage walking to transit; reduced setbacks and placing parking at the sides/rear of buildings. A new Growth Plan came came into effect on May 16, 2019. All decisions made on or after May 16, 2019 will conform with this plan. The proposed development would be in conformity to the currentGrowth Plan. 4.3 Regional Official Policies Plan (2006 Consolidation) At the time of application the existing Regional Official Policies Plan identified the subject lands as being within the "City Urban Area" designation. The Plan encourages a wide range of housing types, compact development, mixed land uses and increased residential densities. 4.4 Regional Official Plan (Region of Waterloo) (Region of Waterloo) Regional Council has also adopted a new (December 2010) Regional Official Plan (ROP), (Approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on June 18, 2015) and identifies the subject lands as being within the "Built -Up Area". Lands within this designation have the greatest capacity to accommodate growth and serve as the primary focus for employment, housing, cultural, and recreation opportunities in the Region. 2-42 (Region of Waterloo) DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" Further, the subject lands are identified as being located along an Existing Transit Corridor. The ROP contemplates these areas as being dedicated rights- of-way outside of mixed traffic that accommodate existing or planned high frequency transit service. 4.5 City of Kitchener Municipal Plan (City of Kitchener) The existing City of Kitchener Municipal Plan designates the subject lands as "Medium Rise Residential" and "Low Rise Residential" Medium Rise Residential allows for a maximum net residential density of 200 units per hectare, an FSR of 2.0 and a maximum building height of 8 storeys. Low Rise Residential allows for a maximum FSR of 0.5, maximum net residential density of 25 units per hectare, and a building height of 3 storeys. 4.6 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law The City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85- 1 partially zones the subject lands as both "R8" and "R3". 859 & 867 Frederick Street These properties are zoned "R-8" which allows for various residential uses including multiple dwellings, a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 and a maximum height of 24.0 metres. 39 Avon Road This property is zoned "R-3" which allows for low density residential uses such as single detached dwellings and ancillary uses including home occupations and private day cares. 10.5 metres. (City of Kitchener) The maximum permitted building height is 2-43 4.7 Required Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendmer DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" Official Plan To change the land use designation of 867 and 859 Frederick Street by adding an Area Specific/Site Specific Policy Areas Number. Changing the land use designation of 39 Avon from Low Rise Residential to Medium Density Residential with an Area Specific/Site Specific Policy Areas Number. The Area Specific/Site Specific Policy Areas Number will permit a maximum building height of 10 storeys or 33.75 metres rather than 8 storeys or 25 metres and a setback of 58 metres from 45 Avon Road for any portion of any building greater than 1 storey in height Zoning By-law To change the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified in the City of Kitchener from Residential Eight Zone (R-8) to Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 752R. To change the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified in the City of Kitchener from Residential Three Zone (R-3) to Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 752R. A multiple dwelling shall be permitted in accordance with the following: a. The minimum yard abutting the property municipally addressed as 45 Avon Road, for any building or portion thereof, greater than one storey in height, shall be 58.0 metres. b. That the maximum building height shall be 10 storeys and 33.75 metres. c. That the minimum setback for surface parking shall be 3.8 metres from Avon Road streetline. d. A visual barrier shall be required between any surface parking and Avon Road streetline. e. That the minimum yard abutting Frederick Street shall be 4.0 metres. f. That the minimum yard abutting Avon Road shall be 3.0 metres. g. That the minimum setback from Avon Road shall be 5.0 metres for any portion of a building greater than four storeys and less than ten storeys. h. That the minimum setback from Avon Road shall be 7.0 metres for the tenth storey portion of a building. i. That the minimum yard abutting the property municipally addressed as 843 Frederick Street shall be 9.0 metres. j. A minimum of 0.5 bicycle parking spaces, which is either in a building or structure or within a secure area such as a supervised parking lot or enclosure with a secure entrance or within a bicycle locker, per dwelling unit shall be provided. k. A minimum of 6 bicycle parking spaces, which are located in accessible and highly visible locations near the entrance of a building and are accessible to the general public, shall be provided. 2-44 5.1 City of Kitchener Municipal Plan Part 2 General Policies Plan, Section 1 1.1 Variety and Integration The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types both across the City as a whole and within neighbourhoods. To support the successful integration of different housing types the City shall apply principles of community and site design emphasizing compatibility of building form, with respect to massing, scale, design and the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas and ensure that both appropriate parking areas and appropriate landscaped areas are provided on site. 1.4 Neighbourhood Quality 1.5 Neighbourhoods shall have a range of community, institutional and commercial establishments to serve the needs of residents. Where possible these establishments shall be grouped together to encourage the development and sharing of complementary facilities and programs, and to create a centre of identity and convenience within the neighbourhood. The City of Kitchener shall safeguard the integrity of residential uses which are adjacent to industry, commercial or institutional buildings or complexes through screening, berming, fencing or landscaping. Further, the City shall encourage the separation of industrial traffic from residential traffic where possible Intensification and Redevelopment The City will encourage and provide opportunities for the creation of additional housing in existing developed areas, through conversion, infill and redevelopment as an appropriate response to changing housing needs and to make better use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities. The City shall endeavour to ensure that housing being created in existing areas is of good quality in terms of health and safety and is maintained according to the City's Property Standards By-law. DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" Housing The proposed development provides a variation in housing type to the area in the form of a multiple dwelling and townhouse units on site, while at the same time providing a development that is mindful of the character of the surrounding area in terms of the placement of the building on site and massing. This development will benefit from being situated in an area with accessibility to all of these items. The proposed development provides an effective buffer between the commercial and industrial uses along Victoria Street and the low density residential neighbourhood to the south. The proposed development is a consolidation of three existing lots to be redeveloped at a higher density than currently provided, which will utilize existing services and infrastructure. The proposed development will be operated through a condo corporation who will ensure the site maintains a level of safety and cleanliness in accordance to City by-laws. 3. 4. Any new residential buildings, additions to existing residential buildings, modifications to existing residential buildings and conversion in predominantly low density neighbourhoods be consistent with the massing, scale, design and character of that neighbourhood and both appropriate landscaped areas and appropriate parking areas are provided. The City shall endeavour to ensure that additional housing in the existing built-up areas can be adequately supported by monitoring the quantity of new housing added to these areas to assess its impact on the adequacy of municipal services including the capacity of the physical infrastructure. The proposed development is aclp&-�Q PO02 Appendix "C" a low density neighbourhood and is sensitive to this fact by positioning the building on site as close to Frederick Street as possible. The Functional Servicing Report and Water Distribution Analysis provided as part of the amendment submission provides details on servicing and the ability of municipal infrastructure to accommodate this project. Part 2 General Policies Plan, Section 6—Urban Design N 2. City Wide Urban Design High Standards for Urban Design The City shall promote a high standard of site design to encourage business investment, create an attractive living and working environment, promote walkability and foster a sense of community pride and place. Particular attention will be given to strategic or prominent locations in the downtown, along major arterials, street intersections and entrances to the City. In addition, the City shall undertake a study to develop urban design guidelines for developments within the City. Nodes and Corridors The City shall develop and support an urban design strategy within and adjacent to nodes and within and along corridors, that increases transit usage, encourages pedestrian movement and transit access and provides a linkage for cyclist to transit services. Natural Features The City shall endeavour to ensure that developments complement all significant natural resources such as river and creek valleys, ravines, wooded areas, wetlands, parkland and heritage landscapes located within or adjacent to development sites. These new developments will maintain and/or reinforce the natural features in order that they be conserved. The proposed development has been designed in keeping with the policies found within the City's Urban Design Manual. The proposed development facilitates alternative transportation uses and provides amenities for the residents and visitors of the site who utilize alternative transportation to use. The proposed development provides a direct link for on-site residents and the overall neighborhood to the adjacent Rosemount Park which at present time is secluded and underutilized by the neighbourhood. 4. Tree Conservation Where feasible the City shall ensure that existing trees of desirable species which possess aesthetic, functional or heritage value are retained and incorporated into landscaping plans for new development. Open Views and Vistas The City shall ensure where possible and feasible that views and vistas of Kitchener's built and natural features are preserved and enhanced. 6. Architectural Continuity and Conservation The City shall encourage the conservation of buildings and structures of historical or architectural significance or cultural merit, and encourage adjacent buildings to be designed in harmony. 91 IN Skyline The City shall encourage the siting of buildings to terminate view corridors, provide elevation and roof treatments which may them easily recognizable and contribute to the overall skyline. The enclosure of roof top equipment affords opportunities for this. Streetscapes The City shall enhance the character of urban streets through the coordination of site, building and landscape design on and between individual sites. Streetscape improvements shall include the upgrading of existing building facades, signage, sidewalk improvements, lighting, street furniture, parking areas and landscaping. Design of Open Space The City shall develop an active and attractive network of open spaces by ensuring mutually supportive relationships between those open spaces and the built forms which enclose them, and with the pathways, bikeways or natural connections which link them. Groups of Buildings Groups of buildings shall be positioned to define usable and secure open areas and to afford a reasonable measure of privacy to individual dwelling units and adjacent residential properties. Human Scale The City shall develop a physical form which is friendly to its residents and users by ensuring that development respects and reinforces human scale. A Tree Management Plan Ri R-2@,-RWppendix "C" completed for the subject lands. The proposed development enhances the view along Frederick Street, providing a dynamic streetscape. The existing buildings are not considered to be of heritage significance. The proposed development provides an articulated roofline, giving differentiation to the existing skyline. The rooftop equipment is enclosed in the design of the building. The abutting triplexes have been regarded in the design of the subject lands, particularly in terms to how the street frontages of all lands will be integrated to make for a uniform and cohesive public realm. The existing Rosemount Park will be provided with a direct connection to the subject lands and neighborhod , whereas currently the park is underutilized and not afforded the visibility or accessibility for frequent use by the neighbourhood. The proposed development design achieves this and once adjacent properties undergo redevelopment, the goal of this policy will be further realized. The building is designed to allow for a dynamic pedestrian realm, situating the building on site as close to the street line as possible and allowing for active building frontages, as well as organizing the building massing to impact the pedestrian realm as little as possible. 12. Landscaping Appropriate landscaping shall be required in all developments in order to achieve the following: i) Provide colour and decoration; ii) Add visual interest to open spaces and blank facades; iii) Soften dominant building mass at a human scale for the pedestrian; iv) Provide definition of public walkways and open areas; v) Provide a consistent visual image between adjacent properties along the streetscape; vi) Screen unsightly areas; vii) Protection from excessive wind and sun; viii) Stabilize steep embankments; ix) Enhance the appearance of building setbacks and yard areas; x) Provide a measure which minimizes the visual impact of parking and service facilities from adjacent properties and streets; A) Achieve energy conservation; xii) Design practises which aid successful long-term maintenance; xiii) Protection of natural features and tree conservation; and xiv) Creation of safe urban environments. 13. Art in Public Places The City shall promote art in publicly accessible places in order to enhance the enjoyment of the built environment. The display of public art in its many forms to commemorate significant persons or events shall be considered. Public art may include, but not be limited to statues, paintings, murals, fountains, sculptures, plaques, memorials, squares and display cases, all of which contribute to the cultural and historical well-being of the community 14. Universal Access New buildings, the retrofitting of existing municipal buildings and public spaces shall be designed to foster and support accessibility by all citizens. The full range of abilities of persons of all ages with mental, physical and sensory impairments shall be considered in the design of the built environment. This shall be achieved by means of minimal grade changes, curb cuts, ramps, railings, contrasting materials for orientation, etc. (as identified by the Ontario Building Code). Accessibility design guidelines shall be prepared by the City in accordance with the National Building Code Standards to further improve accessibility of municipal buildings in the City. Landscaping details will be finalizgayQa8�Appendix "C" the Site Plan Approval process, and will conform to City requirements. Public art instillations are not contemplated for the subject lands. The site is proposed to be fully accessible. 15. Im 17 IU] 10 20. Parking and Loading Areas Parking, loading areas and driveways shall be located and designed to facilitate efficient maneuverability on site, between adjacent sites where appropriate, and to reduce the disruption of traffic flow resulting from turning movements to and from the property. Also, parking for drivers with a disability shall be located in close proximity to the building entrance and be clearly marked. Site Elements Buildings shall be designed and positioned so that elements such as shipping and loading areas, transformers and meters are screened from public view. Garbage shall be stored inside the building where appropriate. Outdoor Recreational and Play Facilities The City shall encourage the construction of an appropriately sized outdoor recreational play facility suitable to the size of the development and the needs, interests and safety of the intended occupancy. Security Publicly accessible spaces shall be designed with increased security to encourage greater use. Noise Attenuation Noise levels in the urban environment shall be minimized through the use of mitigating techniques, such as building orientation, location of open spaces relative to the noise sources and noise attenuation measures. Lighting The City shall enhance the safety and attractiveness of the urban environment by promoting the use of lighting on private sites and public property which is of an appropriate quality, intensity and design. When providing lighting in parking areas, it should be ensured that the light source does not produce unwanted glare, the distribution of light, for the most part, is confined on private sites, and that the lighting fixture and pole/tower is compatible with the scale of adjacent buildings. 21. Signage The streetscape shall be enhanced by using signs which are integrated into the streetscape and into the design style of the development. The proposed development is des aPA-002 Appendix "C" with a single access to Frederick Street which will allow for fluent vehicular movements through the site by both personal vehicles but also loading and garbage trucks. Further, the barrier free spaces both on the surface and underground are located in proximity to the building entrances. The garbage facilities are located internal to the building and will be accessed at the rear of the building, internal to the parking lot. The loading area, transformer and meters are all located discretely on site so as not to detract from the functionality and appeal of the design. The proposed development provides indoor and outdoor amenity areas for the residents to utilize, as well as a direct connection to the abutting Rosemount Park. The proposed building will be designed with appropriate security measures in place. Further, CPTED principles have been implemented in the design. The proposed development has contemplated noise mitigation techniques to comply with Ministry noise standard requirements. Detailed lighting design will be provided during the Site Plan Approval phase of the project. The building is to be designed to include signage for the non-residential uses that will compliment the building design and adhere to City sign requirements. 22. 23. Stormwater Management The City shall endeavour to ensure that modern stormwater management techniques are employed in the design and implementation of development to control quantity, quality and velocity of urban runoff and that these facilities are considered aesthetic. Street and Building Orientation In areas of new development, the City shall 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. Also, where appropriate the City shall encourage direct sunlight access to all existing or future solar collector panels or solar oriented glass be protected during winter daylight hours. 24. Energy Efficiency Zoning regulations may accommodate building orientation, landscaping, lot coverage and other design features in exchange for increased energy efficiency and enhancement of renewable energy resources. Preliminary stormwater managem�-20-002 Appendix "C" design is provided as part of the OPA/ZC submission. Detailed design will be contemplated through the Site Plan Approval process. The proposed building is situated so that the longest building frontages face the north and south. The proposed development incorporates various energy efficient measures such as building materials, fixtures and appliances. 5.2 New City of Kitchener Official Plan Part C Section 4—Housing 4.1.1 HM] 4.1.4 4.1.6 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. To ensure that new residential areas and the redevelopment of lands for residential uses and residential infill projects reflect a high standard of urban design. To locate and integrate housing opportunities with local stores and services that are accessible by active transportation and public transit. To encourage and support live/work units and home occupations at appropriate locations throughout the city. The proposed development provides an alternative unit type apartment just up the road to the west than currently present in the adjacent area, as well as a variety of unit types on the site itself. The proposed development is well articulated architecturally, providing building interest through building massing and materials, orientation and site design, The proposed development is purely residential in nature . Stores and services are available in the area. Live/ work units are not contemplated as part of this project. r -i LJ 2-50 4.C.1.8 Q Q e 4.C.1.9 4.C.1.12 Where a special zoning regulation(s) or minor variances) is/are requested, proposed or required to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s) or minorvariance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that: Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. The impact of each special zoning regulation or variance will be reviewed prior to formulating a recommendation to ensure that a deficiency in the one zoning requirement does not compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning deficiencies. 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. 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. DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" The proposed development provides a greater height and density than currently permitted on site, yet the design of the site reduces any impacts the increase of height and density through building orientation and massing on site, buffering techniques and proposed uses. The development proposes to implement various buffering measures on site in relation to the abutting residential uses. The site-specific variances are necessary for the proposed development to proceed but will not create operational deficiencies on site. The proposed site-specific regulations will not impact the functionality of the site nor impact the surrounding area, but are required to facilitate the proposed development on site. The proposed development was designed being mindful of the established surrounding area and will not negatively impact the surrounding uses. The proposed development provides two forms of residential uses being apartments and townhouses. 4.C.1.13 The City will work with the development industry and other community members to identify and encourage innovative housing types and designs in the city where such innovation would: a. be compatible with surrounding land uses; B. support the development of complete communities C. provide live/work and home occupation opportunities; D. incorporate energy conservation features and the use of alternative energy systems and/or renewable energy systems; E. reduce municipal expenditures; f. protect natural heritage features; M h III provide accessible and affordable housing to residents; conserve and/or enhance our cultural heritage resources F DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" As noted previously, the proposed development achieves this policy. The proposed development adds housing variation and commercial space that will benefit the area. The proposed development achieves this policy. Energy efficient materials and appliances are proposed to be utilized on site. The proposed development utilizes existing infrastructure and services. Landscape plans are to be considered during the Site Plan Approval phase. The proposed development will be priced based on market trends. The subject lands are not currently recognized as heritage significance. celebrate the cultural diversity of the The proposed development achieves this community; policy be transit -supportive and/or transit - oriented; or, reflect, add and/or enhance architectural interest and character 4.C.1.37 Live/work units will be permitted in any land use designation which permits residential uses subject to the following: A. the live/work unit is appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the character of the neighbourhood; B. the live/work unit can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties; and, C. adequate parking is available. 4.C.1.38 Live/work units are encouraged to locate on major collector and arterial streets and roads. 4.C.1.39 A live/work unit will have a dwelling component located in the unit and any appropriate business or work purpose use will be located on the ground floor. Various amenities are provided on site to aid in the use of alternative transportation The proposed development has been designed with articulated facades and massing techniques that provide interest and uniqueness to the development. Live/ work units are not proposed as part of this development. 4.C.1.40 The location, scale, types of business or work purpose uses, size of units will be further regulated in the City's Zoning By-law. Part C Section 7—Natural Heritage and Environmental 7.C.4 7.C.4.1 A C X E. 7.C.5 7.C.5.1 7.C.6.1 A. B. E. Management Sustainable Development Policies The City will ensure that development and redevelopment strives to be increasingly sustainable by encouraging, supporting and, where appropriate, requiring: compact development and efficient built form; environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and construction practices; the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and, transit -supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active modes of transportation such as cycling and walking. Water Conservation Policies The City will encourage the reduction of water consumption levels through the promotion of the efficient use of water and the implementation of water saving technologies and may specify appropriate water conservation measures within existing and new development. The City will seek to minimize energy consumption by: promoting a compact urban form; maximizing the use of existing infrastructure; encouraging mixed use development and complete communities; DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" The proposed development consolidates three existing lots and provides a higher density of development that utilizes existing infrastructure and services. The landowner will implement as many best practices as possible during the development and construction process. It is proposed that a direct connection and possible improvements to Rosemount Park be implemented through this development proposal. The landowner proposes to utilize the subject lands and construct the development as efficiently as possible. The landowner proposes to implement various TDM measures in regards to the development, which will be finalized through Site Plan Approval. The proposed development will implement efficiency measures in regards to water consumption through fixtures and energy efficient appliances. The proposed development consolidates three existing lots and provides a greater density on site than what currently exists. The proposed development will utilize existing municipal services and facilities. A mixed-use building is not proposed for this development, however differing forms of residential units are proposed. promoting walking, cycling and the use of public transit. Part C Section 11 Urban Design 1 1.C.1.1 1 Streetscape: The City will support the character of streets through the coordination of site, building and landscape design on and between individual sites with the design of the street. 1 1.C.1.12 Skyline: The City will have regard for the city's skyline when considering development applications and infrastructure projects and in the formulation of urban design guidelines and/or urban design briefs. 1 1.C.1.13 Safety: The City will apply Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in the review of new developments, redevelopments and infrastructure projects to implement crime prevention strategies that will enhance the effective use of the space. 1 1.C.1.14 Where feasible and in compliance with the other policies of this Plan, the City will ensure that the efficiency of emergency medical, fire, and police services be considered in the design of communities, neighbourhoods and individual sites. 1 1.C.1.16 The City will encourage new sites to be designed, existing sites to be redeveloped, the public realm and community infrastructure to be planned to be barrier -free and universal accessibility by all citizens. In this regard, the City will enforce the Ontario Building Code and other accessibility related legislation and regulations. 11.C.1.22 The City will require the provision of shade, either natural or constructed, to provide protection from sun exposure, mitigate the urban heat island, and reduce energy demands provided it does not does not generate unacceptable adverse impacts. 11.C.1.29 The City will ensure that new sites are designed, existing sites are redeveloped, and community infrastructure is planned to enhance the site, buildings, open spaces and the streetscape. The proposed development pr[DoWd;e 002 Appendix "C" facilities and connections to alternative transportation modes. 16 The abutting triplexes have been regarded in the design of the subject lands, particularly in terms to how the street frontages of all lands will be integrated to make for a uniform and cohesive public realm. The proposed development provides an articulated roofline, giving differentiation to the existing skyline. The rooftop equipment is enclosed in the design of the building. CPTED principles have been implemented on site, further details are provided elsewhere in this report, and additional details will be finalized through the Site Plan Approval process. The ability of emergency services accessing the site has been contemplated in the design of the site. The site is proposed to be fully accessible. Site landscaping details will be finalized during the Site Plan Approval process and will meet City standards. The proposed development efficiently utilizes the subject lands, and is designed with active street frontages prioritizing the pedestrian. I 1.C.1.31 The City will ensure new buildings are designed, existing buildings are redeveloped, expanded, converted or renovated to enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places. 11.C.1.33 The City will encourage the following: Through building massing and the �Y�s� Appendix "C" uses along the street frontages, a dynamic and interactive streetscape is provided. A. provision of attractive building forms, The surrounding area has, generally, not yet fapades and roof designs which are undergone redevelopment, however the compatible with surrounding proposed building design provides attractive buildings; and interactive building facades, and B. infill development to complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character, particularly if located within close proximity of a recognized cultural heritage resource or Heritage Conservation District C. minimization of adverse impacts on site, onto adjacent properties (particularly where sites are adjacent to sensitive land uses) and into the public realm through building design; D. individual architectural innovation and expression that reinforces and positively contributes to achieving the City's urban design goals and objectives; and, E. the highest standard of building design for buildings located at priority locations, with particular emphasis on architectural detailing for all fapades addressing the public realm. articulated building massing. The proposed development has been designed in context with the surrounding area. The proposed development is sensitive to the surrounding land uses and pays mind to site functionality and efficiency. The proposed development provides a building design not currently found in this area of the City, and respects the City's urban design goals and objectives. The proposed building design includes massing and material differentiation, which provides articulated building facades and active street frontages. 5.3 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" 5.1.1 5.1.2 Pedestrian Circulation • Provide barrier free sidewalks The site is designed with the pedestrian's leading directly from the public needs at the forefront. With the availability street, transit stops and parking of numerous modes of alternative areas to the principal building transportation available to residents and entrances. visitors of the site, a comprehensive • Install weather protected pedestrian network on site is needed. The entrances with sidewalk ramps at all proposed development achieves this by public building entrances and major providing direct pedestrian connections to transit stations. the building along both street frontages • Minimize pedestrian and vehicular thereby separating the pedestrian from the crossings on site. vehicular realm of the site. A direct • Provide barrier free access connection to the abutting Rosemount Park throughout the site, avoiding drains, for the residents of the site and catch basins and similar neighborhood to utilize for recreational obstructions. purposes. • Identify and emphasize major pedestrian routes through the use of signage, bollards, new sidewalk linkages, pavement markings, trees, appropriate scaled lighting, and continuous hard surfaces. • Provide pedestrian links between neighbouring properties, large central parking lots and mid -block linkages for residential development projects. • Provide weather protected shelters and lighting attransit stops. Vehicle Circulation and Parking • Locate parking areas (particularly Vehicles access the site via a single access/ barrier free parking spaces) in close egress to Frederick Street. This access will proximity to building entrances. be utilized for deliveries, pick-up and drop- . Provide vehicle parking at the side off of residents, and garbage collection. and rear of buildings. Front yard This access also provides the most efficient parking is discouraged. Vehicle route to the underground parking structure. parking is encouraged to be This access will also be primarily utilized for situated to the side and rear of the surface parking ingress and egress. building and close to the entrance. • Clearly define primary vehicle The underground parking structure provides routes on the site through the use of various parking options including barrier free signage, curbing, bollards and line parking and tandem parking for residents. painting. Parking areas should be The underground parking deck is accessed separated from primary vehicle via a single ramp and all drive aisles routes and driveway entrances to operate in a two-way fashion. Pedestrian public streets. staircases are provided on either end of the • Link parking areas on abutting parking garage to allow for surface access, commercial properties to provide for while access to the building and the movement between lots. elevators are proposed at the north end of • Provide landscaping around the the parking deck. perimeter of parking areas and laneways. Use low level screening adjacent to public streets. Use dense screening (i.e. solid fences, coniferous plant material) when adjacent to residential development. 2-56 5.1.3 Provide raised traffic islands to break up large parking areas. Traffic islands should be of a suitable scale and size to accommodate shrub and tree planting. Traffic islands should be barrier free where they are part of the pedestrian circulation system. Landscaped islands provide additional definition of vehicular and pedestrian site circulation. • Provide ground cover other than sod within raised traffic islands. Select parking lot plant material with the following qualities: • Ease of maintenance and free of nuisance fruit or berries. Hardy, strongly branched. Pollution, salt and drought tolerant. Ensure parking lot planting does not obstruct views of approaching traffic and pedestrians. Landscaped areas should be designed to avoid creating a hiding place for those with criminal intent. • Provide adequate lighting levels and uniform coverage in parking areas and service/utility areas. • Screen parking areas to avoid illumination of adjacent properties by automobile headlights. • Provide well drained areas, separated from parking spaces, to accommodate winter snow storage. • Provide convenient and easily visible locations for bicycle and motorcycle parking. Avoid dead-end parking aisles Provide an adequate number of shopping cart corals in central locations throughout commercial parking areas. Parking Structures • Integrate ground level, street oriented uses within parking structures where possible. • Ensure that entrances and ramps are at a uniform scale with other facade treatments and streetscape elements. • Provide barrier free parking close to entrances and elevators. • Ensure parking structures include the following safety features: Adequate and uniform lighting. Protected light fixtures. White paint to improve light levels and reduce glare. Clearly indicated exit routes and doors. Locks and self-closing devices to secure entrances and exits. • "Alert" signs to remind users to lock all vehicle doors and check back seats. F DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" The parking structure is accessed via a single ramp which has been integrated into the parking lot design of the site. The barrier free spaces in the parking structure are located adjacent to the building entrances and pedestrian walkways leading from these spaces to the building entrances are provided. The parking structure is proposed to be adequately lit, have restricted access, walls finished in a white colour to provide added visibility in the space, safety fixtures such as convex mirrors at corners, effective circulation signage and access to secure bicycle parking facilities. 5.3 • Mirrors and circular support columns to avoid potential entrapment and hiding area • Ensure that new parking structures incorporate articulated facades that contribute to the streetscape, and compliment the surrounding built form and building features. Consider active uses along primary street frontages. • Provide indoor bicycle parking spaces or dedicated rooms within large parking structures. Landscape Design • Provide landscaping at the streetline which contributes to the continuity of landscaping between adjacent properties. • Maintain unobstructed visibility to building entrances, key architectural features, signage and public spaces. Locate plant material in a manner which provides adequate site lines for both motorists and pedestrians. • Group trees and shrubs to frame building elevations and to add visual interest to blank facades and open spaces. • Install landscape elements which provide colour and decoration, having regard for local seasonal changes. • Install plant material to soften building elevations, maintain a pedestrian scale and provide definition to public walkways and open spaces. • Provide landscaping to screen and buffer parking areas, open storage and other site service elements. • Provide protection from excessive summer sun and cold winter winds, especially adjacent to outdoor areas where people congregate. • Stabilize steep embankments through the use of soft and hard landscape material, such as retaining walls, ground cover and trees. • Select plant materials which are ecologically sound, appropriate for the existing and future site conditions, and suitable for all seasons. Entrance planting at the award winning "Queens Heights", provides and enhances unobstructed visibility to the building entrance at a human scale. Hard and soft landscape materials have been used to accentuate the entrance while stabilizing a steep embankment and providing protection from the outdoor elements. F DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" The site is proposed to provide landscaping in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning By-law and Urban Design Manual. The main landscaping focal point is surrounding the building site, particularly along both street frontages. The proposed landscaping will maintain unobstructed visibility to building entrances, key architectural features, signage and amenity spaces and will enhance the pedestrian realm on site. Perimeter landscaping will be provided to screen and buffer parking areas on site from the surrounding uses especially along Avon Road. Further, plant materials which are ecologically sound, appropriate for the existing and future site conditions, and suitable for all seasons will be utilized on site. Full landscape design will be provided during the Site Plan Approval phase of the project. 2-58 5.4 F • Incorporate drought resistant plant DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" material in order to reduce long term maintenance requirements and conserve water (xeriscaping). • Select native plant materials where appropriate and avoid the use of invasive plant species. Site Signage • Provide clearly visible street numbers Signage locations will be detailed at the on ground supported signs for Site Plan Approval stage and required sign identification and emergency response permits will be obtained. purposes. The minimum height of all street numbers shall be 150mm if within 15m of the street line. If beyond 15m of the street line, street numbers shall be 300mm. • Construct ground supported signs with a horizontal orientation at a height proportionate to the development. Ground supported signs should incorporate building and landscape materials used elsewhere in the project. A well designed ground supported sign is simple, bold, includes the street number and is detailed in concert with the architecture of the building. • Limit the number of messages on signs to avoid "graphic overload". Simpler signs are more easily read. Generally signs with ten items of information, including words, symbols and abbreviations or less can be read by the motorist. Signs with more than ten items of information (graphic overload) create clutter in the streetscape. • Provide a uniform height and location of fascia signs on multiple tenancy buildings in order to portray a unified image. • Use signage to promote a particular image in neighbourhoods with a distinctive character. "Artistic" signage that promotes the character of a given area is preferred. • Automatic changing copy signs are not permitted near residential properties, street intersections and highway interchanges/frontages. Provide "Multiple Unit Identification Signage" for all multiple building commercial and residential developments (excluding single apartment buildings and street fronting townhouses) to provide for ease of orientation. • Provide appropriate landscaped areas on the site to properly identify the location of portable signs. • Ensure that mature landscaping and signage work in harmony with each other. 59 5.6 :-1j Emergency Access • Ensure that emergency vehicles can gain easy access to, within and from the site. • Provide on-site vehicle circulation and parking which does not conflict with the use of emergency access routes. • Provide clear pedestrian passage to and from the building to enhance emergency access and exit. • Identify maximum spatial separation between front door entrance and street line for emergency access. • Identify the location of hydrants and sprinkler connections through the use of signage and bollards. • Provide identification signage for all multiple tenancy developments. Signage is to be provided at the front and rear faces of commercial buildings in order to identify building units, hydrants and emergency routes. Building Design and Massing • Locate the main building facade towards a public street or internal courtyard. Principal walls should have windows along the street or interior space to provide casual surveillance and break up the building mass. • Locate active uses such as retail, service shops and restaurants at the street level to encourage pedestrian activity and interaction between internal spaces and the public realm. A well defined entrance from the street at the Regional Building on Frederick St. • Emphasize the main building entrance. Canopies over doorways and other treatments are encouraged to provide weather protected outdoor space. • Avoid blank walls along the principal building elevation facing a street, private roadway or rear elevations facing residential properties or public space. Where blank walls are unavoidable, use architectural techniques (banding, soldier course, pilasters, glazed windows, etc.), murals and additional landscaping materials to enhance the elevation. • Vary and articulate building facades to provide visual interest. Building mass along streets can be broken up by a series of bays to create the impression of smaller building units. DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" Due to the building's proximity from the street, fire fighting measures will be undertaken from Frederick Street, through the main building entrance, should the need ever arise. Other emergency response vehicles are provided a direct access to the building via the Frederick Street access. The site has been designed to ensure that emergency vehicles can gain easy access to, within and from the site. Further, the location of hydrants and sprinkler connections will be identified on site and identification signage for all multiple tenancy developments will be provided at the front and rear faces of the building in order to identify building units, hydrants and emergency routes. The main building facade is located towards both public street frontages. The principal walls provide windows along the street and interior to the site to provide casual surveillance and break up the building mass. The active uses on site (commercial and live -work) are provided at the street level to encourage pedestrian activity and interaction between internal spaces and the public realm. Canopies are provided over doorways to provide weather protection. Further, the building has been divided into distinct sections including a strongly defined base element to improve the pedestrian environment, an articulated middle section to minimize bulk and a defined top section which contributes to an interesting skyline. The building facades are articulated using varied materials, glazing techniques, balcony projections and roofline variations. Lastly, the rooftop mechanical equipment is proposed to be screened and the elevator shafts effectively incorporated into the building design. 2-60 6.2 • Design buildings to ensure a transition in scale, form and height from adjacent buildings. Use building mass, location of windows, horizontal lines, cornices, gables and roofs to create transition and a change of scale. • Organize tall buildings into distinct sections including a strongly defined base element to improve the pedestrian environment, an articulated middle section to minimize bulk and a defined top section which contributes to an interesting skyline. • Mix long and short townhouse blocks on residential streets to provide for variation in the streetscape. Avoid single monotonous elevations through use of rooflines, colours, chimneys, window bays, materials, and other features. Articulate corner and rear elevations. The attention to detail in the building and site design of Kitchener Housing's Linden Terrace are a reflection of the City's commitment to achieving a high standard of urban design. • Detail buildings using cornices, keystones, window bays, eaves, dormers, entrance canopies, and other such elements. • Design rooftops to have some identifiable shape. Avoid square or flat rooftops on large buildings. • Enclose or screen rooftop mechanical equipment. Integrate roofs and screening with the design of the building in terms of form, materials and colour. The roof design of the Regional Building on Frederick Street encloses the HVAC equipment and provides an identifiable shape to the structure. Infill Development • Design buildings at a scale which is compatible with adjacent structures. New buildings should respect the established heights and setbacks in the neighbourhood. • Design buildings to be compatible with the surrounding built form through appropriate building mass, design features and materials. • Use materials that are similar to those found in the existing neighbourhood. • Maintain the rhythm of existing building separations, the size and dimensions of existing fagade openings, the proportion of opening to wall and vertical articulation. F DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" The surrounding area is comprised of a variety of permitted land uses and densities. The adjacent properties along Frederick Street are provided with Official Plan Designations and Zoning Classifications that allow for much more intensive development than what currently exists on these properties, and should the area ever be redeveloped, the building composition along Frederick Street will significantly change. At this time, the subject site is the first development to undergo intensification. Although the height and density is in excess of what the surrounding area currently provides, that will not always be the case. 2-61 • Design buildings to respect the "invisible lines" created by existing neighbourhood building features such as cornices, gable heights, porch elevations, similar roof pitches and other defining elements. • Create interest and vitality in new building facades using elements found within the existing neighbourhood (porches, dormers, bay windows, roof pitches, etc.). • Ensure that all accessory building features and components including rooftop mechanical equipment, air conditioning equipment/units, and balconies are well integrated into the building design and do not negatively impact the streetscape. • Provide adequate fire separation distance between new infill buildings and existing buildings. • Accommodate vehicle parking and circulation in a manner that respects the existing neighbourhood condition. Vehicle parking should not dominate front yards and should not detract from the character of the neighbourhood. The proposed building is situatedac�e Appendix "C" to the Frederick Street and Avon Road intersection to focus all of the building mass and density on site as close to Frederick Street as possible thereby significantly reducing any impacts on the neighbourhood to the south. The building massing pays mind to the pedestrian realm by providing an identifiable base, mid section and upper section to the building, and incorporating building stepbacks. The proposed building materials are neutral and somewhat traditional yet with modern infusions as provided with the glazing techniques, for instance. The building's mechanical equipment is proposed to be integrated into the building design. Further, parking is provided on site so as to minimize the impacts of it on the street frontages as much as possible. 2-62 DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" 6.1 Amenity Areas Two types of amenity areas are provided on site: Private: Balconies are provided to above -grade units while patios are provided for at grade residential units, providing the residents with a private outdoor space to enjoy. The balconies are designed with glass railings to allow for visibility and the maximization of natural light into the residential units. Shared Private: On site are various landscaped areas proposed for passive recreation including a dedicated amenity area in the western interior side yard. This area is proposed to be visually and accessibly barrier free, with passive surveillance of the area achieved by the residents of the building and passersby. In addition, amenity areas are proposed internal to the building including party facilities and a gym for the residents to utilize which are to be designed with CPTED principles in mind. n R v a d I k 1 P■ 1 p 1 ` \\yU dmeGr,E � of `Ei"•�� �� --�_ i LJ + YMn ..... Q At Grade 1 Below Grade/Base rffent__ 6.2 Landscape Design DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" The site is proposed to provide landscaping in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning By-law and Urban Design Manual. The main landscaping focal point is surrounding the building site, particularly along both street frontages. The proposed landscaping will maintain unobstructed visibility to building entrances, key architectural features, signage and amenity spaces and will enhance the pedestrian realm on site. Perimeter landscaping will be provided to screen and buffer parking areas on site from the surrounding uses (especially along Avon Road). Further, plant materials which are ecologically sound, appropriate for the existing and future site conditions, and suitable for all seasons will be utilized on site. Full landscape design will be provided during the Site Plan Approval phase of the project. 6.3 Lighting Finalization of a site lighting design has not yet been completed at this time. The lighting on site will be designed with attractive fixtures and to adequately light pedestrian and parking areas. The light emitted from the fixtures will be contained to the site and will be designed so as not to affect the residential units on site nor the abutting properties. 2-64 6.4 Site Circulation DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" Access to the site is designed to be favourable to pedestrians, while also acknowledging that residents will also own personal vehicles. Vehicular Access and Circulation: Vehicles access the site via a single entrance/ exit to Frederick Street. This access will be utilized for deliveries, pick-up and drop-off of residents, and garbage collection. This access also provides the most efficient route to the underground parking structure. This access is proposed to be primarily utilized for surface parking ingress and egress. The underground parking structure provides various parking options including barrier free parking and tandem parking for residents. The underground parking deck is accessed via a single ramp and all drive aisles operate in a two-way fashion. Pedestrian staircases are provided on either end of the parking garage to allow for surface access, while access to the building and the elevators are proposed at the north end of the parking deck. Pedestrian Access and Circulation: The site is designed with the pedestrian's needs at the forefront. With the availability of numerous modes of alternative transportation available to residents and visitors of the site, a comprehensive pedestrian network on site is needed. The proposed development achieves this by providing direct pedestrian connections to the building along both street frontages thereby separating the pedestrian from the vehicular realm of the site. A direct connection to the abutting Rosemount Park for the residents of the site and neighborhood to utilize for recreational purposes is proposed. 6.5 Emergency Access DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" Due to the building's proximity from the street, fire fighting measures will be undertaken from Frederick Street, through the main building entrance, should the need ever arise. Other emergency response vehicles are provided a direct access to the building via the site access on Frederick Street. The site has been designed to ensure that emergency vehicles can gain easy access to, within and from the site. Further, the location of hydrants and sprinkler connections will be identified on site and identification signage for all multiple tenancy developments will be provided at the front and rear faces of the building in order to identify building units, hydrants and emergency routes. DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" 6.6 Building Massing 6. The main building fagade is located towards both public street frontages. The principal walls provide windows along the street and interior to the site to provide casual surveillance and break up the building mass. Active uses on site are provided at the street level to encourage pedestrian activity and interaction between internal spaces and the public realm. Canopies are provided over doorways to provide weather protection. Further, the building has been divided into distinct sections including a strongly defined base element to improve the pedestrian environment, an articulated middle section to minimize bulk and a defined top section which contributes to an interesting skyline. The introduction of townhouses along Avon Road creates a pedestrian scale for the project as well. The building facades are articulated using varied materials, glazing techniques, balcony projections and roofline variations. Lastly, the rooftop mechanical equipment is proposed to be screened and the elevator shafts effectively incorporated into the building design. 6.7 Parking Structures The parking structure is accessed via a single ramp which has been integrated into the parking lot design of the site. The barrier free spaces in the parking structure are located adjacent to the building entrances and pedestrian walkways leading from these spaces to the building entrances are provided. The parking structure is proposed to be adequately lit, have restricted access, walls finished in white to provide added visibility in the space, safety features such as convex mirrors at corners, effective circulation signage and access to secure bicycle parking facilities. 6.8 Intensification The surrounding area is comprised of a variety of permitted land uses and densities. The adjacent properties along Frederick Street are permitted greater heights and densities than are currently developed, and should the area ever be redeveloped, the building composition along Frederick Street will significantly change. At this time, the subject site is the first development to undergo intensification. Although the height and density is in excess of what the surrounding area currently provides, that will not always be the case. The proposed building is situated adjacent to the Frederick Street and Avon Road intersection to focus all of the building mass and density on site as close to Frederick Street as possible thereby significantly reducing any impacts on the neighbourhood to the south. The building massing pays mind to the pedestrian realm by providing an identifiable base, mid section and upper section to the building, and incorporating building stepbacks and including townhouses along Avon Road. The proposed building materials are neutral and somewhat traditional yet with modern infusions as provided with the glazing techniques, for instance. The building's mechanical equipment is proposed to be integrated into the building design. Further, parking is provided on site so as to minimize the impacts of it on the street frontages as much as possible. 6.9 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design DSD -20-002 Appendix "C" There are four key principles of CPTED which have been incorporated into the design of the proposed development, Access Control Access Control is a strategy of decreasing criminal opportunity by denying access to crime targets and creating a perception of risk to offenders, and should limit the opportunities for criminal activity to occur through the design and placement of buildings, entrance/exits, parking and amenity areas, etc. It involves the use of physical barriers and deterrents such as fences and alarm systems; along with more subtle design practices which will guide people through the space for example along planned walkways and under well lit areas through the site. The proposed site design provides a single point of vehicular access, and dedicated pedestrian paths to strategically lead pedestrians through the site. The parking garage will be accessed by the residents only using a swipe or key fob entry system. All internal amenity areas will be highly visible through window and door openings into interior hallways. The residential entrances will be monitored for security purposes. Surveillance Surveillance is a strategy where the placement of physical features, activities and people are done in such a way that maximizes visibility and observability of a space, and that the site design must ensure that users can see and be seen. The entrances will be well lit and surveillance of these accesses is achievable through the provision of balconies and/or windows on all sides of the building. The amenity areas on site, both internal and external to the building, are designed to allow for passive surveillance by the residents on site and passersby. The parking garage is proposed to be well lit, painted white and outfitted with convex mirrors to allow for increased visibility. Territorial Reinforcement Territorial Reinforcement is a strategy that encourages legitimate users of a space to develop a sense of ownership and responsibility of it, and also includes the use of physical and psychological barriers that define public and private space; such as fencing, signage, changing surface treatments and landscaping. The site is proposed to be fenced along the interior lot lines to provide a definitive boundary to the site, which is especially required to differentiate the public park space to the south and the subject lands in order to reduce the likelihood of trespassing. Along the street frontages, the site is proposed to be landscaped which will provide a definitive buffer between the public boulevard and the subject site. DSD -20-Q02 Appendix "C' The underground parking garage will be designed to be accessible by only the residential tenants on site as opposed to all site users. Maintenance Maintenance is a strategy of encouraging the care and ongoing maintenance of a property, ensuring the continual use of space for its intended purpose. An adequately maintained property is essential as these actions make people aware that the property is well cared for. Regular maintenance of landscaped areas, garbage removal, and the immediate removal and/or repair of vandalism/graffiti deter such actions from re -occurring. The intention is to create a Condominium Corporation; which will ensure the property will be regularly maintained and uphold a standard of cleanliness on site. The proposed development at 867 Frederick Street has been designed with a sensitivity to the City's vision as presented through the City's Urban Design Manual. The requested amendments do not hinder the proposed development from achieving a high level of urban design, and efficiently utilizes the site and provides an impactful development concept suitable for such a high visibility street within the city, yet is mindful of the surrounding area that has yet to undergo redevelopment. 13A DSD-20-002 Appendix "D" Internal Memo *CammunityServices Department www.kitchener.ca Date: July 312015 To; Garett Stevenson, Senior Planner From: Lenore Ross, Urban Designer Subject: Official Plan Amendment OP15/05/F/GS Comments Zone Change ZC15/015/F/GS Comments 859, 867 Frederick and 39 Avon Road Scott Patterson — Labreche, Patterson & Associates (applicant) Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic (owners) Urban Design Brief— a revised report is required There are numerous sections throughout the Design Brief that contain unsubstantiated statements that purport that the proposed development is in conformity with policies, meets objectives or achieves Urban Design Guideline criteria without specifically detailing HOW the project will achieve these targets. Specific details and discussion of the means that will be employed to achieve compliance/conformity with City goals, objectives and standards is required. A redesign of the property which incorporates the 31 and 35 Avon Road property into an overall design should be strongly considered. Elevations — revisions are required * All materials for the proposed building have not been specified on the submitted elevation drawings and it would appear that the building is primarily concrete with glass windows, balcony doors and railings. Some brick or brick -textured precast (?) may be proposed on the Frederick St fagade at the street level and portico. Additional architectural detailing and a range of high quality materials is required to differentiate and detail various elements of the building. * Although the proposed location of the building along Frederick St does push the building mass away from the park and majority of the neighbourhood, there are still significant impacts to adjacent properties and the height and mass of the building should be reduced to address these conflicts. Additionally, the Frederick St setback is underutilized and unspecified; the building should be pushed further towards Frederick St. * The articulation provided on floors 1-4 for the Frederick St fagade should be continued to include all facades. If commercial, live/work or townhouse type units are intended they could be visually distinct from the balance of the tower. • The uniform mass of the middle section of the building should be significantly reduced by eliminating several of the floors within the 5-9 range and incorporating the stepbacks shown for the top -most floors on the interior facade and on both end facades The publically visible corners of the building should be emphasised, particularly the corner of Avon Road and Frederick St. The Frederick/ Avon fagade should be extended along Avon Road to create a slight "L" — shaped building. The street -side of the building could accommodate a prominent commercial tenant or distinct townhouse type units. The corner 2-70 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" InternalMemo I'1T�C'.FilJ-�FR Community Services Department www.kirchenerca hm adjacent to the detached dwelling on Frederick St should incorporate an access on to Frederick St and the parking/garage entrance integrated into the architecture of the podium Despite the assertions of the Design Brief (pg 7 Identity and Built Form), the proposed materiality, built form and massing is not compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, does not provide an effective transition between adjacent land uses and it is unclear how the proposed building materials, lighting and parapet design reflects, incorporates or'pays homage to' the existing established area . A low-rise or lower mid—rise built form should be implemented along the Avon Road right of way to better integrate with the existing triplexes and singe detached dwelling and to provide a more appropriate and continuous streetscape Angular Plane Analysis — revisions are required Additional 45° angular plane analysis is required for the adjacent residential lots at 31-35 Avon Road, 45 Avon Road and 843 Frederick St. Shadow Impact Analysis — revisions are required Please revise to updated form and mass Tree Management Plan — a revised plan is required • A valuation of all trees proposed for removal was required and has not been provided; please provide this information to determine compensation planting requirements • The location of tree protection fencing is not explicitly noted and I am assuming it is proposed to be installed at property line; please note location of TPF. Several off -property trees and vegetation units will be significantly impacted if TPF is installed at the property line e.g. hedge at 45 Avon Road, hedge at 843 Frederick St, Prunus (plus several smaller trees and shrubs) near tree #80 and within Rosemount Park. This vegetation should be adequately protected according to City standards. If adjacent property owners have given consent for removal/damage/alteration, please forward this acknowledgement to the City Trees #88 and #89 are on the right of way and permission from City Operations will be required. Trees #55 and #60 appear very close to the property line and considering recent court decisions respecting common property line trees, consent from the property owner at 843 Frederick St is required. Site Plan — a revised design is required 4 Access to the property should be distributed with one access on Frederick Street and one on Avon Road Additional cross sections are required for the revised design e.g. along several points on Avon Road; at 31-35 Avon Road interior property lines and along Frederick St • Complete pedestrian connections are required from the proposed building to the revised southern access on Avon Road and to the proposed park access. Safe pedestrian connections through the surface parking area should be provided IP The required 1.5m minimum landscaped buffer should be provided on interior property lines • The proposed amenity area is insufficient and impractical 2-71 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" InternalMemo i . R Community Services Department www.kitchener ca For Final Site Plan Approval the followine documentation will be required: A Tree Management Plan is required — please see UDM Part C, Section 13 page C-43 A Landscape Plan is required - please see UDM Part C, several sections contain applicable standards A copy of the Grading Plan must be submitted with the Landscape Plan Irrigation Plans are required - please see UDM Part C, Section 15 page C-84 A Lighting Plan is required - please see UDM Part C, Section 4 page C-11 Building Elevations and a 3-D Massing Model are required • Black line drawings or full colour renderings specifying all materials and colours are required. do All HVAC should be fully screened from public views Cost Estimate and Letter of Credit (LOC) • A cost estimate for all required on-site development works will be required in standard City format A Letter of Credit for 50% of the approved Cost Estimate will be required * The developer should contact City Legal Services 519.741.2200 x 7858 in advance of obtaining their Letter of Credit, in order to have the DBRS rating checked and pre -cleared. Certification of the completed site works will be required Plan Review Fees * Plan review fees will be required at the rate of 5% of the approved cost estimate. A Fire Route Plan is required Contact Greg Reitzel for information and approval greR.reitzel@kitchener.ca 519.741.2200 x 5510 2-72 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Internal Memo E 3 Infrastructure Services Department www-kirrh,-ner ca Date: August 4, 2015 To; Garett Stevenson From: Yvonne Westerveld Cardoso cc: Subject: 2015-08-04 Operations comments for 859 and 867 Frederick St. and 39 Avon Road Hello Garett, In our review of the 859 and 867 Frederick St. and 39 Avon Road OPA and zone change application, Operations has calculated the park land dedication for this development proposal for 126 units net (129 proposed — 3 existing), at 1 hectare per 300 units based on the Multiple Residential Apartment land use appraisal of $1,359,000. At a site area of approximately o.56 hectares, the required cash -in -lieu of park land requirement for this application is approximately $57o,870.00 (126/300 x $1,359,000). Rosemount Park is located adjacent to the proposed development site. This park has no existing amenities and limited street frontage, but is valuable with the increasing density in this area. The City is open to opportunities, to the benefit of both parties, to work with the applicant to reconfigure the adjacent park in a manner which would offer improved street frontage while not reducing the overall size of the existing park. Through a park reconfiguration, the City may be open to alternatives to enhance the park as part of the applicant's park dedication contribution. Regards, Yvonne Westerveld Cardoso Landscape Architect Design & Development I Operations I Infrastructure Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2600 ex. 4216 Yvonne.WesterveldCardoso@a kitchener.ca 2-73 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Dave Seller Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 2:37 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: RE: 859 & 867 Frederick St and 39 Avon Rd - Manchester Rd traffic calming Hi Garett, Transportation Services supports a full moves access from Frederick St as you have mentioned below Dave From: Garett Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:25 PM To: Dave Seller Subject: RE: 859 & 867 Frederick St and 39 Avon Rd - Manchester Rd traffic calming Hi Dave, And further to our discussion, confirming you are agreeable to a full move access from Frederick Street (located as far from the intersection of Avon as possible). Thanks, Garett From: Dave Seller Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 11:41 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 859 & 867 Frederick St and 39 Avon Rd - Manchester Rd traffic calming Hi Garett, Manchester Rd is tentatively ranked 20th on the 2015 Traffic Calming Priority listing. Avon St was counted (2012) but does not meet the minimum requirements to be placed on the Traffic Calming Priority listing. Dave Seller Traffic & Parking Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller(a)kitchener.ca Afta 11u ejC �g a 2-74 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Dave Seller Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 11:41 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 859 & 867 Frederick St and 39 Avon Rd - Manchester Rd traffic calming Hi Garett, Manchester Rd is tentatively ranked 20th on the 2015 Traffic Calming Priority listing. Avon St was counted (2012) but does not meet the minimum requirements to be placed on the Traffic Calming Priority listing. Dave Seller Traffic & Parking Analyst Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller(a)kitchener.ca W'T Vv9 ,_ 2-75 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Dave Seller Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 11:48 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: OPA (OP15/05/F/GS)/ZC (ZC15/015/F/GS) comments: 859 & 867 Frederick St and 39 Avon Rd Hi Garett, Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed OPA/ZC. Based on the Parking Justification and TDM Study competed by Paradigm (March 2015), Transportation Services supports the rational and justification for the proposed parking reduction from the required 212 parking spaces to 179 parking spaces. Dave Seller Traffic & Parking Analyst Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller(bkitchener.ca 2-76 S19-570-2172 WRDSB Planning 09:28:23 a.m. 08-10-2015 CIRCULATION COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road If you have NO concerns or comments, please complete and return this form. If applicable, please return your comments in writing by mail, email, or fax by July 31, 2015. R+VAj1,k* DL5-Fi 2Ec/aa) b0T-P c,rr Department/Agency Date DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Name of Representative (please print) Signature of Representative Please direct all questions, comments, and forms to: Please direct all questions, comments and forms to. Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 TDD\TYY: 1-866-969-9994 garett.stevenson @ kitchener.ca 2-77 Reglon of Waterloo Garett Stevenson Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King St. W., PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Stevenson, DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street; 8th Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4J3 Canada . Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwater Ioo.ca Carolyn Crozier 575-4757 ext. 3657 File: C14-60/2/15015 D 17-40/2/15005 August 7, 2015 Re: Proposed Official Pian Amendment OP15/05/F/GS and Zoning ;By-law Amendment ZC15/01 F/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Streetand 39 Avon Road Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic CITY OF KITCHENER Regional staff has -"completed. its circulation of the above -noted proposed Official Plan. Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and provide the .following comments for your consideration. The subject properties are located: at 859 and 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road. The properties addressed as 859 and 867 Frederick Street are designated as Medium Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan, .and the property addressed as 39 Avon Road is designated as Low Rise Residential.. The properties addressed as 859 and 867 Frederick Street are zoned as Residential Eight (R-8) in the City's Zoning By-law and the property addressed as 39 Avon Road is zoned as Residential Three (R-3). The applicant- is requesting an Official Plan amendment to change the land use designation for all of the subject properties to High Rise Residential with a Special Policy to limit the maximum building height to 12 storeys and to limit the maximum Floor, Space Ration. ' The applicant is also requesting to change the zoning for all of the subject properties to Residential Nine (R-9) with special regulations. A Special Use Regulation is proposed to permit additional permitted uses and additional home businesses uses for the 5 live -work units. 2-78 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Transportation Planning Transit Planning Transit comments, if any, will be provided as the Site Plan or Plan of Condominium application state. Noise An environmental noise report dated May 15, 2415 prepared by CRA has been received and is currently under review by the Regional staff. The recommendations of the noise study will be required to be implemented through a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener. This will be a Regional condition for any future Plan of Condominium application for the proposed development. The condition(s) must be secured.accordingly. The site must be developed consistent with the recommendation of the noise study as approved by the Region. Water Services The applicant circulated a Functional Servicing Report, dated May 2015, to the Region. Based on the review of this report, there are no further concerns with this application. Regional staff has no obiection to the proposed application. Fees The applicant should be advised that the Regional Fee Schedule has been updated as of March 5, 2015. The Regional application fees are as follows: { Official Plan Amendment - $5,000 (payable once City Council adopts the Official Plan Amendment by-law) General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Carolyn Crozi r M,Sc.PI, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner 1934690 2-79 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" CIRCULATION COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15105/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC151015/F/GS Milan Kovacevlc and Dean Kovacevlc 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road If you have NO concerns or comments, please complete and return this form. If applicable, please return your comments in writing by mail, email, or fax by July 31, 2015. Department/Agency Name of Representative (please print) 4ULY 7 ! �. Date Signature of Representative Please direct all questions, comments, and forms to: Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY: 1-866-969-9994 garett. Stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-80 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" D i Development & Municipal Services Control Centre Floor 5, 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario MIP 4W2 Tel: 416-296-6291 Toll -Free: 1-800-748-6284 Fax: 416-296-0520 July 10, 2015 City of Kitchener Planning Department P.O. Box, 1118, 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 Attention: Garett Stevenson RE: Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -Law Amendment Application Location: 859 & 867 Frederick St. & 39 Avon Ad. Your File No: OP15/05/F/GS, SC15/015/F/GS Bell File No: 51367 Thank you for your letter of July 8, 2015 requesting comments on the above -referenced application(s). A detailed review of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -Law Amendment application has been completed and an easement may be required to service the subject property, depending on a review of more detailed applications under the Planning Act. Please be advised that Bell Canada requests to be circulated on any future draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium, site plan, or any other development application, that is proposed to implement the subject Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -Law Amendment application. Through these processes, Bell Canada will provide a more detailed review and comments with respect to any requirements Bell Canada may have to service the subject property. Should you have any questions please contact Sandra Hugh-Yeun at 416-296-6590. Yours truly Lina Raffoul, Manager - Development & Municipal Services, ON 2-81 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" M_ Development & Municipal Services Control Centre Floor 5, 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario MIP 4W2 Tel: 416-296-6291 Toll -Free: 1-800-748-6284 Fax: 416-296-0520 February 11, 2015 City of Kitchener Planning Department P.O. Box, 1118, 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario N20 4G7 Attention: Garett Stevenson Dear Sir/Madam: RE: Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -Law Amendment Application Location: 69 Amherst Dr. and 67 Durham St. Your File No: OP/15/01, ZC/15/01 Bell File No: 50769 Thank you for your letter of January 13, 2015 requesting comments on the above -referenced application(s). A detailed review of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -Law Amendment application has been completed and an easement may be required to service the subject property, depending on a review of more detailed applications under the Planning Act. Please be advised that Bell Canada requests to be circulated on any future draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium, site plan, or any other development application, that is proposed to implement the subject Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -Law Amendment application. Through these processes, Bell Canada will provide a more detailed review and comments with respect to any requirements Bell Canada may have to service the subject property. Should you have any questions please contact Sandra Hugh-Yeun at 416-296- 6590. Yours truly Lina Raffoul, Manager - Development & Municipal Services, ON 2-82 _4N - 1P .. Region of Waterloo Garett Stevenson Planner City of Kitchener 200 King St. W., PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Stevenson, DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" PLANNING, HOUSING.AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor Kitchener ON N26 U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4533 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Carolyn Crozier 575-4757 ext 3657 File; C14-60/2/15001 017-40/2/15001 February 11, 2009 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Zoning By-law Amendment 15/01/A/GS 69 Amherst Drive & 67 Durham Street Owl Properties Inc. & Ivica and Mirjana Abramovic CITY OF KITCHENER Regional staff has completed its circulation cif the above -noted proposed Official Plan ano Zoning By-law Amendrrent and provide the fol Iowing corn ments for your consideration. The subject lands are an undeveloped area addressed as 69 Amherst Drive, the rear portion of 27 Durham Street, and a small City -owned parcel along Doon Valley Drive. The subject land is designated as Low Rise Residential in the existing Official Plan. The purpose of the proposed Official Plan Amendment is to permit a cluster stacked townhouse development with a maximum Floor Space Ration of 1.0 and a maximum density of 70 units per hectare. Concurrently, the applicant is proposing to amend tine zoning from the existing Residential Three (R-) to Residential Seven (R-7). In addition, a Special Regulation Provision would be required to reduce the off-street parking requirements and the rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing to construct a 49 unit cluster stacked townhouse project comprised of 32 four-bedroom units, 16 two-bedroom units and a manager/superintendent building with a three-bedroom unit on the top portion, and common area on the bottom. Facilities will include bike storage and repair facility, laundry, meeting areas and office. Water Services The subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 2 (W) with a static hydraulic grade line of 361 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 304.8 mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2015. ]796770 2-83 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Please note that the applicant will be required to prepare a servicing report/fire flow analysis for the proposed development at time of site plan submission, to be reviewed and approved by the City. A copy of the analysis should be provided to the Region for information purposes. .Land Use Compatibility / Transportation Planning At this location the proposed development may encounter environmental noise sources (Traffic) as it is located within 200 meters of Conestoga College Boulevard; which has over 4000 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). As a condition of draft approval of any future condo application, the applicant will be required to: a) prepare a transportation noise study to assess the impact of noise from Conestoga College Boulevard on the development, or, b) enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide a noise warning clause and retrofitting for air conditioning in the offers to purchase, deeds or rental agreements for each unit. The noise warning clauses would read as follows: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic (Conestoga College Boulevard) 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 " Hydrogeologv and Source Water Protection As this proposed development will be for a multi -residential land use, the Region encourages the proponent to prepare a Salt Management Plan (SMP). The SMP can be provided at site plan approval stage. As part of the SMP, the Region encourages the proponent to incorporate design considerations with respect to salt management, including: Ensure that 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 SalJm certified. • Using alternative de-icers (i.e. pickled sand) in favour of road salt. The proponent is eligible for certification under the Smart About SaItTM 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://www.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 in insurance premiums. 1796770 2-84 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Regional staff has no obiection to the proposed application. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Carolyn Crozier M.ScA, MCIP, RP Principal Planner rc_ Kristen Barisdale, GSP Group Inc. (by email) 1796770 2-85 519-570-2172 WRDSB Planning 10:54:47 a.m. 01-15-2015 } DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" CIRCULATION COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/01/A/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/01/A/GS Owl Properties Inc. & Ivica and Mirjana Abramovic 69 Amherst Drive & 27 Durham Street, Kitchener If you have NO concerns or comments, please complete and return this form. If applicable, please return your comments in writing by mail, email, or fax by February 16, 2015. Department/Agency Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY: 1-866-969-9994 t. larett.stevenson @ kitchener.ca Name of Representative (please print) I Signature of Representative 2-86 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Christine Goulet Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:53 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 69 Amherst Drive Hi Garett, I have looked at the sanitary modelling, and Engineering would support the zone change for a peak sanitary flow of 3.8L/s. One thing I noticed when reading the functional servicing report is that they are claiming they do not have to do stormwater management. This is not correct. They need to do quantity control of 5 year post to pre and if they extend the storm sewer they need to do normal level quality on site. If they do not extend the storm sewer they will pay cash - in -lieu. I did forward a copy of this report to Angela Mick, so she will comment on the water system. Thanks, Christine Goulet, C.E.T. Engineering Technologist Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 Ext. 7820 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.goulet@kitchener.ca rFy Vov.:; 2-87 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Angela Mick Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:52 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 69 Amherst & 67 Durham St Garett, I have reviewed the water distribution information in the Revised Functional Servicing Report (Nov 2014) and I don't have any issues. Regards, Angela Mick, P.Eng Utilities Engineer — Water I Kitchener Utilities I City of Kitchener 519-741-2600 x 4408 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 angela.mick(a kitchener.ca You , DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Carrie Musselman Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 9:07 AM To: Garett Stevenson Cc: Michael Palmer Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change (69 Amherst Drive & 67 Durham Street) Hi Garett, For the most part Environmental Planning has no concerns with the proposed OPA and ZC application. We will defer the review of the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan (in this case Tree Inventory & Assessment Report prepared by GSP dated November 2014) to the Urban Designer. Regards, Carrie Musselman Senior Environmental Planner I Planning I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7068 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Carrie. Musselman(cbKitchener.ca From: Christine Kompter Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:11 PM To: Bell - Cyndi Vienneau-Cormier; Bell - Dan Magwood; Bell - Daniel Steffler; Bell - David Kerton; Bell - John La Chapelle; Bell - Musab Ameen; Dan Ritz; Dave Seller; GRCA - Kaitlyn Smith; GRCA - Mollie Kuchma; Greg Reitzel; Jeramie Lewis; Josh Joseph; Joyce Evans; Ken Carmichael; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron; Larry Tansley; Linda Cooper; Mayor's Office - Admin; Michael May; Mike Seiling; MTO - John Morrisey (john.morrise(aontario.ca); Ontario Power Generation; Region - Blair Allen; Region - Brenna MacKinnon; Region - Bruce Erb; Region - Joginder Bhatia; Region - Richard Parent; Region - Shilling Yip; Rita Delaney; Robert Morgan; Tim O'Brien; WCDBS - Virina Elgawly; WCDSB - Lindsay Ford; WRDSB - Shawn Callon; Yvonne Westerveld Cardoso; Daniel Angelucci; Alain Pinard; Craig Dumart; Eric Schneider; Joanne Sutherland; Sandra Santos; Alexandra Pires; Andrew Pinnell; Brian Bateman; Della Ross; Garett Stevenson; Juliane vonWesterholt; Katie Anderl; Sheryl Rice Menezes; Adam Clark; Barbara Steiner; Brandon Sloan; Carrie Musselman; Dayna Lafferty; Leon Bensason; Michelle Drake; Natalie Goss; Sarah Coutu; Tina MaloneWright; Janine Oosterveld; Lenore Ross; Lisa Thompson; Michael Palmer; Sandro Bassanese Subject: Circulation for Comment - Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change (69 Amherst Drive & 67 Durham Street) Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Garett Stevenson, Planner (519-741-2200 ext. 7070; .,arett.stevenson@kitchener.ca). Sincerely, Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca 2-89 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Dave Seller Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:27 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: OFA/ZC comments: 69 Amherst Dr/67 Durham St Hi Garett, Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed OPA/ZC. Transportation Services supports the rational and justification for the proposed parking reduction from the required 86 parking spaces to 68 parking spaces. Also, a future 1.5 metre wide concrete sidewalk to be provided along the Doon Valley Dr frontage which will be taken by the City's Engineering Department in the form of cash -in -lieu. Dave Seller Traffic & Parking Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller(c kitchener.ca z OYIIO 2-90 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Kaitlyn Smith <ksmith@grandriver.ca> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 3:29 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change (69 Amherst Drive & 67 Durham Street) Hi Garett, The GRCA will not be undertaking a review of the OPA & Zone Change Application for 69 Amherst Drive & 67 Durham Street, as the subject properties are located outside of GRCA regulated area. We trust that the City will ensure that adequate stormwater management is provided in the development of this site. if you have any questions, or require additional information, please let me know. Kind regards, Kaitlyn Smith I Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, PO Box 729, Cambridge ON N1R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2763 x 2292 1 Fax: 519-621-4945 �.erandriver.ca From: Christine. Kompter@kitchener.ca [mailto:Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca] Sent: January -13-15 1:11 PM To: cyndi.cormier@bell.ca; dan.magwood@bell.ca: daniel.steffler@bell.ca; david.kerton@bell.ca: rowcentre@bell.ca; Musab.Ameen@Bell.ca; Dan.Ritz@kitchener.ca; Dave. Seller@kitchener.ca; Kaitlyn Smith; Mollie Kuchma; Greg. Reitzel kitchener.ca; Jeramie.Lewis@kitchener.ca; Josh.Joseph@kitchener.ca: Joyce. Eva ns@kitchener.ca; Ken.Carmichael@kitchener.ca; gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca; Larry.Tansley @kitchener.ca; Linda.Cooper kitchener.ca; MayorsOffice-Admin@kitchener.ca; Michael. May@kitchener.ca; Mike. Seiling@kitchener.ca; john.morrisey@ontario.ca, Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com; ballen@regionofwaterloo.ca; bmackinnon@regionofwaterloo.ca; berb regionofwaterloo.ca; ibhatia@regionofwaterloo.ca; rparent@regionofwaterloo.ca; syipCcbregionofwaterloo.ca; Rita. Delaney@kitchener.ca; Robert. Morgan@kitchener.ca; Tim.OBrien@kitchener.ca; Virina.Elgawly@wcdsb.ca, Iindsay.ford@wcdsb.ca; shawn callon@wrdsb.on.ca; Yvonne.WesterveldCardoso@kitchener.ca; Daniel.Angelucci@kitchener.ca; Alain.Pinard@kitchener.ca; Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca; Eric. Schneider@kitchener.ca; Joanne.Sutherland@kitchener.ca; sandra.santos@kitchener.ca; Alexandra.Pires@kitchener.ca: Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca; Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca; Della. Ross@kitchener.ca; Garett.Stevenson Akitchener.ca, Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca; Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca; Sheryl.RiceMenezes@kitchener.ca; Adam.Clark@kitchener.ca; Barba ra.Steiner@kitchener.ca; Brandon. Sloan @kitchener.ca; Carrie. Musselman@kitchener.ca; Dayna.Lafferty@kitchener.ca; Leon.Bensason@kitchener.ca; michelle.drake@kitchener.ca; Natal ie.Goss@kitchener.ca; Sarah.Coutu@kitchener.ca; Tina. MaloneWright@kitchener.ca; Janine. Oosterveld@kitchener.ca; Lenore. Ross@kitchen er.ca; Lisa.Thompson@kitchener.ca; Michael.Palmer@kitchener.ca; Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca Subject: Circulation for Comment - Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change (69 Amherst Drive & 67 Durham Street) Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Garett Stevenson, Planner (519-741-2200 ext. 7070; narett.stevenson@kitchener.ca). Sincerely, 2-91 Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca You DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" 2-92 DSD -20-002 Appendix "D" Garett Stevenson From: Michelle Drake Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:48 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change (69 Amherst Drive & 67 Durham Street) Attachments: OPA15-01-A-GS & ZC15-01-A-GS Circulation Letter.pdf No heritage planning concerns. Michelle From: Christine Kompter Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:11 PM To: Bell - Cyndi Vienneau-Cormier; Bell - Dan Magwood; Bell - Daniel Steffier; Bell - David Kerton; Bell - John La Chapelle; Bell - Musab Arneen; flan Ritz; Dave Seller; GRCA - K,aibyn Smith; GRCA - Mollie Kuchrna; Greg Reltzel; Jeramie Lewis; Josh Joseph; Joyce Evans; Ken Carmichael; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron; Larry Tansley; Linda Cooper; Mayor's Off ice - Admin; Michael May; Mike Seting; MTO - Jvhn Morrisey (john.morris aontarfo.ca); Ontario Power Generation; Region - Blair Allen; Region - Brenna MacKinnon; Region - Bruce Erb; Region - Joginder 8hatia; Region - Richard Parent; Region - Shilling 'yip; Rita Delaney; Robert Morgan, Tlm O'Brien; WCDBS - Virina Clgawly; WCDSB - Lindsay Ford; WRD58 - Shawn Callon; Yvonne Westerveld Cardoso; Daniel Angeluccl; Alain Pinard; Craig Dumart; Eric Schneider; Joanne Sutherland; Sandra Santos; Alexandra Pires; Andrew Pinnell; Brian Bateman; Della Ross; Garett Stevenson; Juliane vonWesterholt; Katie Anderl; Sheryl Rice Menezes; Adam Clark; Barbara Steiner; Brandon Sloan; Carrie Musselman; Dayna Lafferty; Leon Bensason; Michelle Drake; Natalie Gass, Sarah Coutu; Tina MaloneWright; Janine Oosterveld; Lenore Ross; Lisa Thompson; Michael Palmer; Sandro Bassanese Subject: Circulation for Comment - Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change (69 Amherst Drive & 67 Durham Street) Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Garett Stevenson, Planner (519-741-2200 ext. 7070; ,tiarett.stevenson@kitchener.ca). Sincerely, Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca NA U 2-93 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:02 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Development at Avon Rd and Fredrick St Good Morning Garrett! I received the flyer detailing the new development at Avon and Fredrick and I have many questions. First, giving a week notice, in the summertime is pretty short notice. I am surprised that you did not give more time on the flyer for questions and comments, or hold a meeting for residents to attend and understand better the plan and process etc? Many people are away on holidays and will miss their opportunity to comment which is very unfortunate. There is mention to a Staff Report, does that mean that this project has not been approved by the City or has it been approved and that is just paperwork? Will the staff report be available to the public when completed? I am curious to the process to for approval to permit and build? What does the City do to evaluate the impact a development like this will have to the neighbourhood? Has there been an assessment/study to the impact to parking and traffic been done? Noise? The flyer says commercial units will also go in? Is there any indication or regulation as to what commercial business can be located there? Is there a plan/visual of the potential building that can be shared with the public at this point? Is the new building to be a condominium building with tenant ownership generally or rental? The parking exit for the building will be on to Fredrick or Avon? I am concerned as that is already a very congested part of Avon, when there is a church activity, as well as overflow from Victor St businesses— occasionally it is so congested with parking on both sides of the street you need to turn around and go the other way out of the subdivision. Additionally, the congestion there is concerning for pedestrians and children playing — if someone was to cross or run out between two cars visibility is decreased. Is there any plans to change the availability/limit of street parking on Avon? Or the adjacent streets? This is a very quiet, low traffic neighbourhood, that is why many of the residents chose to live here - there are many original owners still here since the 1960's, adding this type of development will absolutely change/impact the neighbourhood. I would like to understand more about the process, and end results. I look forward to your response — Thank you! 2-94 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:20 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: application for 12 Story building on Fredrick and Avon Streets I have recently been made aware of a proposed apartment building on Fredrick Street and Avon. I own a home on Rosemount Drive and am opposed to having this structure built in our neighbourhood. Not only will it devalue our properties but it will cause increased traffic on our already busy streets. The school yard backing this property was formerly a hang out for young people and has been monitored and cleaned up by local residents. We bought in this area because if it's single family dwellings, a building of this size and these amounts of people are just not what we desire. I would like to be noted as strongly opposed to this going forward. 2-95 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 3:32 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Application for 12 story building at corner of Avon and Frederick Dear Mr. Stevenson, Thank you for informing the residents of Rosemount about the application for a 12 -story building at Avon and Frederick. I am concerned that such an building will impact the already congested aspect of traffic at River road, especially during the morning and even work rush. Also, such a building would be a blot on the landscape in this neighborhood. Such a building makes more sense in higher density areas adjacent to other similar buildings. As a resident of Manchester Road, I want to keep the traffic contained as it is already at the tipping point. Please accept this email as my concern and disagreement with the application. Thank you, 2-96 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:30 AM To: Garett Stevenson Cc: Subject: 12 Storey Building Hi Garett I am responding to a notice I received yesterday re: application for a 12 storey building with 129 units to be constructed at the corner of Avon Road and Frederick Street. I may or may not be in favour of this, but would definitely like to be invited to the public meeting. I would also like more information on what is happening, when it is happening and who the owner is. Thank you, 2-97 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 12:19 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Comments regarding the zone change application for 859, 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road in Kitchener Ontario. There is nothing that I like about the plan for rezoning the above listed properties. They should remain at the levels at which they are presently zoned. These levels are Medium Rise Residential for the ones on Frederick Street and Low Rise residential on Avon Road. This proposal would create a large building surrounded by much smaller buildings and single family homes. There is nothing in this area which is 12 stories high. It will add to traffic congestion on Frederick Street which is quite busy at the present time. This is where Frederick meets Victoria Street. It will also add to traffic coming down Avon Road to Manchester Road in order to get to River Road. This has always been a quiet residential neighbourhood. The properties involved in this new project are presently not well maintained. Would a new much larger building be well maintained? Houses in the area are well looked after. This project will just not fit in . Thank you. 2-98 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:18 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Re: Zone Change Application Z C15 -015 -F -GF Mr. Garret Stevenson, City of Kitchener City Hall, King St., Kitchener. ON Dear Mr. Stevenson: R£: Zone Change Application ZC 15 -015 -F -GF 859-867 Frederick St. 39 Avon Rd. Owners: Mylan Kovacevic Two Ontario Housing units were built on Avon Road near the corner of Frederick and Victoria street several years ago. The property owners in our subdivision take great pride in maintaining their homes. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said to the Ontario Housing units within the neighbourhood. The grass is seldom cut and garbage is either put out too early or too late for collection and left out in an unsightly fashion. To make matters worse, there are plans for a 12 storey apartment complex with stores, pet shops and a day care centre. A recently built house at 39 Avon Road will be demolished for a parking lot! The Stanley Park - Rosemount area already has an abundance of stores and pet shops within walking distance. Parking is already a big problem on weekends and special occasions because of the small church on Avon Road. It is unfair to elderly members and families with small children belonging to this church to expect them to walk several blocks as a result of limited parking spaces. Hopefully a smaller apartment building with underground parking will be decided in consideration for the church members and nearby homeowners. Thank you for reading our concerns. Sincerely, 16 Tanglewood Ave 25 Tanglewood Ave 8 Tanglewood Ave 2-99 81 Burlington Dr ( 80 Elkington Dr 77 Burlington Dr � 28 Tanglewood Ave 17 Tanglewood Ave DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" 2-100 DSD-20-00��� RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC1 5/01 5/F/GS r,JPAt�Il1Nt� / a�'J, JrCti.i JW Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic r,Itllhla 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. I What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3. — Please provide any additional comments below= Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: 2 0f� Signature:. ; r Address: Email: Phone: _ Dater 1-5r �� ,r To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www,mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson a@kitchener. ca 2-101 Af-r, hof�`Tc1nl�'v� �,�X ("!NJ RESIDENT / RESIDENT COMMENT FORM'V Offlclal Plan Amendment Application OP15105/FIGS � Zone Change Application ZC15f015/FIGS KI'10 IrNIA Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic ,1111 Z -17 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road { r•S..J IYI1�.4I+.�'7 6 Ui 5 4 ��fu } S_3 i� i Blease provide your teedback using this crrr ment fofm, If required, please atlach addifional pagos to thipl, fy-hirn (.by r€POk Mail or fax) 10 (fie ad'dMS8 fisted bNOW by JUI-V 31. 2015, 1. What do you like about the proposal? What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3. Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form, To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name. - Signature: _ Address- Email ddress Email Phone- - F Date: _y.f l _ r 00F_ To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.rnah,gov,on.ca/Page338.asox Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garoll Stevenson City Hall, J) Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE. (519) 741.2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 garett.stevenson@kitchener,ca r fill . 2- 102 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" We are not in favour of increasing the development zoning along Fredrick Street. At 118, it is currently sufficient for suitable development in this neighbourhood. This new development is proposed icer two of the several mediurn density (RB) properties along Fredrick Strect, and also encroaches into the R3 low density residential area proposing to convert an existing residential lot along Avon Rd. The proposal mcircl+es two 2 1/2 storcy triplexes on Avun Rd. which were dcvcloped on a severed portion of the rear of the corner property, developed by this same developer. The remaining portion of the coracr lot appears to be +ac-cupied by a house which has been converted into 3 or 4 apartments. It has been poorly maintained and slummy for many years, with car tires, RV campers, fire pits and other debris littering the site. We believe it is also managed and rented by this developer. is this part of the new urban developer strategy; buy up properties, let them run down, and then request additional density, otherwise we live with the eyesore or move out? As a side note, this same developer purchased 826 Fredrick St., a single detached house on a umier lot which they rented for a couple of years. It was then let to sit vacant and deteriorating while plans where developed for 8 townhouses, two of which will be duplexed, the maximum density permitted on this small R6 site. Since obtaining a demolition permit, they cut down all the beautiful matures treys, and they are yet to begin demolition or construction. Now, more than two (2) years later, the vacant building still sits as an eyesore, and has significantly reduced the quality of the neighbourhood and environment. At Avon/Fredrick, now that adjacent properties have been acquired, the developer wishes Official Plan amendment and zone changes. In effect, they are requesting the maximum residential density permitted by zoning, changing R8 and R3, to R9. This would be necessary to remove height restrictions, reduce setbacks and reduce parking requirements. height restrictions are then only determined by floor space ratio (max 4); and in this case, the twelve story building with surface and underground parking produces a FSR of 2,2, Theoretically, if the zone change were granted, and the developer created more underground parking, they could return with a proposal including an even taller building. As mentioned, Fredrick Street has several other R8 properties, some currently with single detached residential dwellings, the Alzheimer Society in a converted house, and Surry Place - with two 6 storey apartments, surface and underground parking and the original Surry House, The 6 Storey Surry Place development is fitted well with adequate green space, parking and building heights suitable to the neighbourhood. With the exception of the run down properties currently requesting amendments, the other properties are well kept. The current designation of medium rise R8 for a portion of this proposal would permit an 8 storcy building. The Avon Street residential lot would require both Official Plan 2-103 4 . V. 41 ...-.i ... . ­ - .- w.rr rem. I ... DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" amendment and zone change to be included. it could be questioned why not acquire the next house an Avon Road, right up to the non-existent walkway block leading to the park? As the Official Plan outlines, appropriate development preserving the current R8 along Fredrick is more than adequate for this site. Changing it, would Set dangerous precedents for the other R8 properties to be developed in the future. We do not favour granting this increased density. If the Avon Rd property is increased from R3 to R8, this would already be an extreme change. We recognise the city's desire for intensification, however this can stili be achieved following the Official Plan which was only recently amended and accepted. A good example may be the 8 storey apartment at Ottawa and Lackner Blvd. We do not want to see 12 storey high-rise blocks lining Fredrick Street, and trust this is not city staff motivated. The benefit of a development here, as mentioned, will hopefully alleviate the slummy conditions at the Avon/Fredrick corner which appear to have avoided bylaw authorities. And il'a maximum height of 8 storeys is maintained, this could fit without dwarfing others in the neighbourhood. Regarding the included preliminary site plan, it appears the landscaped areas are at the minimum, and there are no on-site provisions for children. Possibly a pedestrian connection could be developed to encourage access to the virtually unused and inaccessible Rosemount Park at the rear of Rosemount School. Also, an additional access to Fredrick street along the south side ol'the proposed building could be beneficial. With respect to traffic, the Avon/ Fredrick intersection will be negatively impacted by vehicular turning, as Fredrick Street is often a continuous flow. If this development proceeds it should do so respecting the current official plan and zoning as much as possible. We do not support R9 zoning at this location. We hope that other neighbours will have adequate skills in expressing themselves, however unfortunately, given the timing of this summer submission, many will undoubtedly not respond, or just accept the inevitable. Sincerely, 58 'Turner Avenue. Kitchener (resident here for over 25 years). July 27, 2015 2-104 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" What do you like about the proposal? I like the fact that after letting the structures deteriorate into almost non -livable conditions for the last couple of years, someone actually wants to replace them. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? I suggest: + Two entrances off of Frederick Street not Avon Road so as to minimize the impact the additional traffic will have on the residence of Avon Road and surrounding streets like Burlington and Manchester Rd. • To accommodate the above I suggest underground parking, beneath the building structure to minimized noise, visual pollution (parking lot lighting), and minimize off road parking. The structure's height be limited to 6 storeys so as to: 1) Maintain current integrity of the neighbourhood. Neighbouring apartments are 6 storeys. 2) Maintain current relative privacy for the backyards of surrounding residences on Avon Road, Monterey Cresc., Applewood, Burlington, Rosemount, etc. Going 12 storeys will intrude on our privacy. 3) Keep the new structure from casting a shadow on close by residences and thereby altering their `sunshine' and substantial altering their daylight/daytime environment. 4) Minimize issues that will occur with off road parking on Avon Road, and adjacent Applewood Ave. because there is no permitted off road parking on Frederick St. Eliminating the commercial businesses /services. Currently have all necessary amenities within walking distance on Frederick and Victoria St. Be it: Daycare, Vet, printers, realtors, financial planers, spas, eating establishments etc. Commercial enterprises will only add to the daytime traffic congestion. The inclusion of greenspace for each resident within property boundaries. Additional Comments The City of Kitchener has spent years putting together an official plan that falls within the Regional and Provincial guidelines. There was opportunity for public input. After much deliberation by committees, the current plan was presented and adopted as the best long range plan to maintain Kitchener's economic, social and environmental health. Accepted in the summer of 2014, it is not an outdated plan. In addition the City prides itself with being ahead of the mandated required densification rate set out by the Region and the Province, so there is no need for alterations. I urge you to stick to the best solution, a healthy social, and economical environment - stick to the current plan. That will generate the best outcome for our neighbourhood, other neighbourhoods, and the City of Kitchener. 29 Tanglewood Ave 2-105 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:18 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Application for 12 storey building Regarding the application for a 12 storey building at the corner of Frederick St. And Avon is very concerning. Our neighbourhood has always been considered a very desirable area to live. This development will definitely affect that. The traffic will increase dramatically. Already traffic from River Rd.cut through on Manchester to Avon to Hwy 7 and visa versa. Allowing a zone change on the proposed properties will only encourage other neighbourhood developments to request the same. This in turn will end the quiet, desirable neighbourhood which we cherish. 54 Tanglewood Ave. Kitchener On df ward@hotmail.com-- 519-743-9344 Sent from my Pad 2-106 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 7:04 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 12 storey building on Frederick and Avon Our neighbourhood is greatly concerned over this proposal for a 12 storey unit at this corner. 12 stories is far too high. Please look at Surrey Place. It follows the tree line. The traffic on Avon will increase with so many of these apartment users trying to short cut either to the apartments or to River Road via Avon. This is a "iiia+ npinhbourhood 46 Tanglewood Ave. Kitchener Sent from my iPad 2-107 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 1:11 PM To: Garett Stevenson Cc: Scott Davey Subject: Re: Application for a 12 storey building with 129 unites to be constructed at Avon and Frederick. >Garett, >After much thought and input from communities, the new City of >Kitchener Official Pan was adopted in June of 2014. Stick to the plan. >Keep 39 Avon Road designated as Low residential. Do not disrupt the >current balance of our environment. Please confirm receiving this email. >Regards >29 Tanglewood Ave > >P.S. I find it disappointing that a notice was received one day (July >30th) before the comment deadline (July 31), during peak vacation time >none -the -less. 2-108 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 11:43 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Proposed Avon road and Frederick street dwelling I am strongly opposed to the development of a 12 storey dwelling building on the corner of Avon Road and Frederick Street for the following reasons. 1. The building would be far to tall in relation to the other dwellings and properties in the adjacent area. 2. A condensed 129 unit building of the size proposed would be completely out of character with the existing mature low density house and bungalow type dwellings in the area. 3. It would seriously increase the road traffic at a junction already over used as a rat run. along Manchester avenue and Avon road to avoid the traffic lights on River road at Krug and Frederick. 4. It would completely alter the aspect and views of the other properties in the area. 5. It would unfairly reduce the value of the surrounding properties. I am not against the redevelopment of this site but feel a lower storey (6 maximum) building would be a far more aesthetically acceptable and equitable to the residents of the area. 6,7 Tanglewood Avenue, Kitchener. 2-109 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Ofiiciai Alan Amendment Applicaborn OP16f051Fi S Zone Change Application ZC161015tFiDS KI'll'11E.NFR Milan Kouacevlc and Dean Kovacovic 869 & 867 Frederick Street anal 39 Avon Road Pla so pfr )vydt your lwd6aA- using this comment form. ff required, $ baso attach additional pages to this fmm. Please ref im (by mali, Lam ail or fax) to the address listed below. by July 31, 2015. 1 _ What do you like about the propvsaP 2. What improuernents do you suggest for the proposal .44,-/- e, 3. Pbna R nravicip anv addifinnnl nnmmPnt+a h�lnw, Thank you for laking the time (o fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider cornments if they include a name and address Please nate that all comments and addresses rioted can this form may be used as part of a public stats report_ however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in ,accordance with Freedom of micas mation regulations_ Mame; _, .,g Signature; _ Address= 7, -h"'7' Xr''r,'s_ Email; Phone:�E mate: To learn more about the plarmIng prcrress, please refer to the f InIstry of Municipal Affairs and Xousirig's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at; ht#ri:livu�yw.rn�h,aoy.on,u�lP�,c�e �8 �s�:s. Pfoa,S43 dir00 self guesfiuns, comments and terms to.- Gare€t Stevenson Gily Hafl, P. O. Box i i l8 Kjh,hortim Ontario. Canada. N2G 4G7 FHOIVE- (579) 741-2200 x 7070 FAQ, (619) 711-2624 TGD4TY'Y' 7-866-96,9-9994 gareft.sfevanson(4e)kitchao?er, ca 2-110 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS KA:IR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? I am interested in new developments in our community. Its good to provide appropriate housing for more people in our community. 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Cha 'Da pj-ArcL-nt of #P7 r,_Ensq i ta re kms of this region is single or double residential and commercial, The priapased buildirNrg would be completely out of place. 3. Please provide any additional comments below: #1 Thi.Sp ialansal Is inrsrnsi;:t1zj-0-,uJ h Ihe r 111.- r r_nsnmitnie:.nl In rieynJ,oP i— Kitt, ener nnrp.aInno th€, nf-w I RT? This building should relocate toward King ar Charles street where other building of similar and -higher height are under construction. #2 The proposed location is not even along the more developed Victoria St. But one block in. This building should not be allowed until is oria St is approved for similar construction. . Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: 245 Rosemount Dr Email: - - Phone: Date: July 31, 2015 To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX. (519) 741-2624 TDD I TYY: 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson @kitchener. ca 2-111 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Comments re: Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS 859 and 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road 1. What do you like about the proposal? New buildings that are attractive and well-maintained add visual appeal to a neighbourhood. 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Our suggestion would be for a building to be constructed that meets the zoning that is in place now. A 12 storey building does not fit our neighbourhood. Adding 129 units to this neighbourhood significantly increases traffic especially on Avon Road that is already used as a cut -through from River to Frederick or vice versa. To our knowledge there is no apartment building in Ward 1 that is 12 storeys or higher. That would make this new building the tallest in our Ward. We are not residents to Kitchener's core. The residents of Rosemount purchased property purposely outside of the core in a quiet neighbourhood that was free of high rise buildings. The new apartment building at Lackner and Ottawa (1505 Ottawa) is just beyond the boundaries of Ward 1. This new building, located across the street from a grocery store and strip plaza, swimming pool and community centre is only 8 storeys. A high rise is certainly more fitting for that intersection and yet it is only a medium rise structure. 3. Please provide any additional comments below. We have concerns with Milan Dovacevic and Dean Kovacevic being managers of a multi -unit building. The dwellings at 859 and 867 Frederick are in disrepair. They have failed to maintain these properties and we have concerns that they would not properly care for their new building. Name: Address: 282 Rosemount Drive Email: phone. Date: July 31, 2015 2-112 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Pian Amendment Application OP15/05/FIGS Zone Change Application ZC15J015/FIGS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Pluese return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 39, 2095. What do you like about the proposal? 7 Mlhnf imnrnvamF-ntc rin von Stjncjp_St for the or000sal7 3. Please provide any, additional comments below: �'r_.�1r1.;� �1P._tl? n•1 � �_Cs.� � Yg3 Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address, Please note that all comments and. addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name` Signature' Address: Email: Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process; please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http ltwww mah qov on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1198 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE. (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAQ. (599) 741-2624 TDDITYY: 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kkchener. ca 2-113 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:08 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Zone Change Concern Hi Garett I just wanted to let you know of my disapproval of a zone change for 859 & 867 Frederick St. It should remain as a low rise residential. There are other options beside single detached homes for those properties and where the developer could still increase his profit. When people buy in an established neighbourhood they never think that this kind of change is possible. How horrible for those closest to the sight and for all who use the green space near it. No consideration of their loss of income or aesthetic appeal/traffic is considered. The developer who wants this - I am pretty certain that he is not living beside a 12 story building! Let's think of others please! Thank -you 342 Rosemount Dr. 2-114 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/FIGS Zone Change Application ZC15/0151F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? WE DO NOT LIKE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROPOSAL, THIS AREA IS ONE OF THE OLDER WARDS IN THE CITY WITH EARLY 1960HOMES THAT EXEMPLIFY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. PROPERTY VALUES WOULD PLUMMENT AND TRAFFIC WOULD MULTIPLY A MINIMUM OF 161.25 (129 x 1.25) 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? THE BEST IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD WOULD BE TO LEAVE IT AS NICE MATURE, TREE 3. Please provide any additional comments below: HIGH SPEED TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA IS ALREADY AND ISSUE THAT WE ARE PATIENTLY WAITING TO SEE SOME RESOLVE, TO THIS DATE NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE: BY ADDING 129 UNITS WILL ONLY Thank -you for taking the time to fill :out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of ,Information regulations. Name: Signature: y Address: 723Rosemount Drive, Kitchener Email:- Phone, mail: Phone: Date: July 29, 2015 To loam more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's pubocation Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http-/1www,niah gpy.on,calP_a eG 338.asox Please dfmct all qt terns, comments and forms to: GOatt Stevenson Oily Hall, P.O. Box If 16 Kdchc,rior, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 I'HOME. (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY:, 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-115 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:53 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: RE: Fwd: 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Hello, I am sending this to you regarding the Zone Change Application for 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road. Please see my comments which state that I am totally against having the Zone Change and that this area of the city should stay as Low Rise Residential ONLY. Thanks RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? _I am totally against this amendment to change the Zone in order to build the following IThe Owner is proposing to redevelop the site with a 12 storey multiple dwelling building that contains 129 units, including 5 live -work units and some commercial space on the ground floor. The development is proposed to include 1.25 parking spaces per unit located within underground parking garage and surface parking area." _This area should stay as a 11LowRise Residential districts permit a variety of low density residential uses including single -detached, semi-detached, duplex, street -fronting townhouses, and multiple dwellings (buildings with 3 or more units" As an owner of property on Rosemount Drive for over 50 years there is no need for any building as described by the Owner in this area of the city. 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? _No improvements, just deny the Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS and leave this area as is. There is already too many high rise apartment buildings in Kitchener already that take away for the beautiful areas that are left in the city. 3. Please provide any additional comments below: _Deny, Deny this they have already ruined that area of Frederick and Avon when they removed all the tree and that corner looks terrible, as they had already removed there backyard and built two small apartment buildings which I believe are no more then three storey, and that is allowed that should be allowed in this end of the city. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and 2-116 addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your nargg[A- $ 9R? M A'4 identifyinq information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: 270 Rosemount Drive, Kitchener ON N2B 1 R8 Email: Phone: Date: July 29, 2015 To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www,mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett. Stevenson@kitchener. ca On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:42 PM, wrote: It was good to speak with you tonight. Attached is the information you need to respond to Garett Stevenson (city planner for the city of Kitchener) about the proposed highrise at Avon and Frederick. The deadline for a response is July 31st. Thank -you for making this a priority. Hi In follow up to our conversation today, please see the attached circulation package. Thanks, Garett Garett Stevenson, BES, RPP, MCIP Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7070 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 garett.stevenson a(�kitchener.ca 2-117 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:46 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Zone change application: ZC15/015/F/GS Good morning Garett, I have received the resident circulation package regarding the zone change request for 859 & 867 Frederick as well as 39 Avon. I apologize for the poor formatting in my comments as I am away on vacation and the computer at the business centre will not allow me to attach my letter as a file. In pasting it into the body of this email, it has become distorted from its original layout. Again, my apologies. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of my concerns regarding this issue. 52 Plaza Court Kitchener, ON N2V1V8 Please see below for my letter: With regards to the requested zoning changes and subsequent proposal of development on 859 & 867 Frederick and 39 Avon, I would like to take this opportunity to submit my comments. I understand that the owners are well within their rights to desire the redevelopment of these existing properties to better serve their investment. My concern, however, is that this intensification should also best serve, and be respectful of, the well-established community in which it will be located. As an eight-year resident in this neighbourhood, I have many concerns that this may not be the case. The proposed changes to the property pose both outright and potential contradictions to the objectives and policies approved by council in the City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener. 1) From 3.C.1: "Development within or adjacent to these (established residential) neighbourhoods will be compatible with and respectful of the existing built form and character of the area". According to this, the proposal is not "compatible" due to its inability to exist "together in harmony within an area without causing unacceptable adverse effects, adverse environmental impacts or adverse impacts" as follows: Adverse effects: there is the potential for "a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment..." due to varying forms of pollution, reduced groundwater dispersion, loss of mature trees, etc "b) injury or damage to property or plant or animal life" where there is an established cohabitation with wildlife such as raccoons, skunks, hawks, etc "e) impairment of the safety of any person" as related to increased traffic flow and parking overflow impacting visibility for existing vehicular traffic as well as pedestrians "g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property" resulting from noise and light pollution, privacy invasion, etc 2-118 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" "Adverse impacts -may include but will not be limited to: shadows over private amenity areas or on building facades for an unacceptable duration, issues of privacy, overlook conditions, negative microclimactic impacts, light pollution (such as light trespass or glare), odour, vibration, noise pollution urban heat island effects, visual clutter or obstructions of views and/or vistas". All of these items listed are potential outcomes with the proposed redevelopment. 2) Section 3,C.2. is n'acanl to identify "Urban .Structure Components that provide guidance on grovyth management and structure for the City Urban Area" in order to direct, "growth to appropriate locations while protecting established and stable areas". Our neighbourhood does not fall under either a Primary or a Secondary Intensification area. Rather, according to Map #2, it is classified as a "community area" which is "not intended to experience major changes" 3) This proposed diversion from the "scale of the built environment" and originally planned "net residential density" undermines our sense of "community character" from which we, the current residents, derive both "community pride" and enjoyment. Objective 4.1.5 is meant to "maintain the housing stock and the stability and community character of established residential neighbourhoods." 4) 4.C.1.8."Where a special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) is/are requested, proposed or required to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that: a )Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. d) New buildings, additions,modlfications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. e)The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site" (see below) 5) The proposal for a decreased parking ratio creates a potential negative situation for overflow in the surrounding residential area even when only looking at the residents and their guests. When the patrons of the commercial storefront and the live -work units are taken into consideration, this problem is compounded. According to the Official Plan, policy 4.C.1.37, "live/work units will be permtitted... subject to the following: c) adequate parking is available". While it may be argued that there will be parking available for these units and their patrons, with reduced overall availability, the situation would be deemed to be inadequate for either the residents or the patrons. One comes at the cost of the other and then to the surrounding area which is the only alternative option to meet this need. 6) With regards to Section 11: Urban Design, the proposed redevelopment disregards the following: a) Streetscape: 11.C.1.11. "The City will support the character of streets through the coordination of site, building and landscape design on and between individual sites with the design of the street." b)Skyline: 11.C.12 "The City will have regard for the city's skyline when considering development applications and infrastructure projects and in the formulation of urban design guidelines and/or urban design briefs" c) Safety: 11.C.1.13."The City will apply Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in the review of new developments, redevelopments and infrastructure projects to implement crime prevention s trategies that will enhance the effective use of the space" Where there is an increased population, there is inevitably an increase in crime. As a resident, I feel that further increasing the allotted number of residents on these properties opposes the CPTED in that it does not "reduce crime and the fear associated with crime". d) Site Design: 11.C.1.30 "Minimize adverse impacts ... onto adjacent properties" a 2-119 In addition to these contradictions, I have further questions regarding the following: DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" 1) As our region seeks waste management solutions, is this potentially creating an increased load where reduction is the aim? My understanding is that properties such as these are responsible for the removal of both garbage and recycling. What is the plan with regards to degradable items that are to be disposed of in green bins? The current residences are able to utilize this service thereby reducing the amount disposed of in our already taxed landfills. With an increase in population and no opportunity to utilize this service, what is the plan to ensure adherence to the city's objective 7.8.1 to, "support and promote recycling, composting and waste diversion programs"? 2) With an increase in population comes an increase in need for emergency services. Is there proper availability of such services to serve this need? 3) Our aging neighbourhood already has issues with deteriorating infrastructure. Increasing the load on these can only have negative implications. What will be the impact with regards to cost of accelerated deterioration and reduction of services to existing residents during repair? 4) Traffir, flow will be Inevitably increased. My main concern is the proposed access via 39 Avon Rile The existing residential neighbourhood is currently a quiet and sheltered area with limited traffic flow. If this entrance is approved, I feel that it will be desirable for those approaching the property on River Rd from the direction of Ottawa street to enter via Manchester and subsequently Avon. With a major flow of traffic coming from both the main arteries of River and Ottawa, there is also the traffic exiting from the area's highways to consider. The vast majority of commuting residents, patrons and out-of-town visitors will be utilizing the Ottawa Street exit of the expressway or approaching from highway 8. For both of these, the nearest point of access to the building will be from Avon. I do not feel that traffic- controlling/calming measures will be adequate to address this increased flow. I moved to this area to raise my young family in a peaceful and safe environment and feel that the current residents' comfort and safety should not be jeopardized for the sake of new residents. Frederick street is already a relatively busy street and having all traffic enter/exit the property from there should be a viable option. 5) The owners currently rent the properties and, from what I can see and hear, there is an established situation of poor tenant management and property maintenance. When this resident load is increased 43 -fold, I fear that the character, safety and desirability of the existing neighbourhood will be jeopardized. In addition to the esthetic considerations, there are sanitation issues to be considered. The properties directly adjacent face the potential for pest -control problems if this occurs. If three single families cannot be made to adhere to basic property management and respectful behaviour to those around them then how is it conceivable that 129 families will be manageable? Additionally, there have been by-law infractions with the existing renters. What will be the increased workload and fiscal impact of bylaw enforcement on this scale? Having kept an eye on both the quick home sales and rental opportunities in this area, I am reminded of the desirability of residing in this area. It seems apparent to me, then, that all parties concerned with this redevelopment do everything in their power to ensure that the characteristics of this coveted neighbourhood are maintained. To alter 39 Avon so drastically would negatively impact the established neighbourhood. To redevelop the properties on Frederick beyond their current zoning restrictions and/or to allow the special regulations regarding live -work units, decreased parking ratio, increased floor -space ratio and commercial space on the ground floor is way out of alignment with many positive aspects of the community area. I believe that the current zoning of these properties would be sufficient to redevelop while ensuring that the objectives and policies in the City's Plan are met. 2-120 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 12:40 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: application for 12 storey building at Frederick and Avon Hello Garett We reed a notice in the flyers this week telling us about the application for a 12 storey building at Frederick St and Avon Rd. I am writing to let you know that we are opposed to a change to the land use designation. Avon Rd is a residential street and anything higher than a 3 to 4 story complex will be out of place in this neighbourhood. I can't begin to imagine how the people who live on Avon Road next to this proposed 12 - story building must be feeling. Please keep us informed of public meetings related to this application. 28 Plaza Crt Kitchener, ON 2-121 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS KM mR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 887 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2095. 1. What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? tia iC-AC X, i3.. - Please provide any additional mmys below: 1 _ 4 Thank you fot taking the time to flit out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of.comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah..qov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct alt questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.• 1-866-969-9994 garett-stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-122 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 5:20 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Zone application ZC15/015/F/GS Hello Garett I am a resident of the Rosemount area and live at 41 Plaza Court I understand that letters with respect to the above zoning change at Frederick St and Avon Rd have been sent to residents of the neighbourhood. I have not received the letter which my neighbours have (dated July 8). 1 have significant concerns with this application and what is proposed and would certainly like the opportunity to have a say. Avon is already a a high traffic area that many use to cut through to Frederick St. Adding 129 cars to this with a high rise development only impacts the neighbourhood, the noise and other potential issues. Although I appreciate the need for development, a high rise does not fit into this neighbourhood or its history. What is proposed is too large. The applicant has managed in the past to slide in a number of low rise developments with little concern from the neighbours. Anything more than medium buildings will bring concern to the residents of this neighbourhood who have paid for their homes, .put money into them to increase their value only to sit and watch them be devalued by a high rise rental. I look forward to hearing from you Sent from my iPhone 2-123 July 27, 2015 Councilor Scott Davey Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4G7 RE: Official Plan Amendment OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Dear Councilor Davey, DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" REGEN " J JL nrus�• I am a long time resident and property owner in the Rosemount area. I have lived here for some 45 years and have most recently invested in my home that I love and have raised a family in. I want to share this with you to give you an idea of who lives in this community. There are families, couples, seniors, students and tenants a like who live in and enjoy the community some for multi generations. There is a reason for this. This is not a noisy, high crime, down town, high density, high rise, faceless condominium type of neighbourhood. The current development types found in the larger area as a whole integrate well into the community and have proven to be successful. I am vehemently opposed to the proposed Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS for properties at 859 and 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road. This plan is ill advised, ill thought out and quite frankly designed solely for the benefit of the Kovacevic family and their desires to maximize their profits. I am confident that any member of Council or any member of the Planning Committee, who live in similar established communities, would be appalled by this type of over development proposal if it targeted their neighbourhood. I understand that development is necessary. I also understand that The City sees development in most instances as a positive thing. However, there are instances where it is ill advised and completely out of character. This proposal is one such case. The intention of the applicant to build a 12 story, high rise apartment building containing 129 units that would include both above and below ground parking is out of touch and out of character for the designated Low Rise and Medium Rise Residential area. With a great deal of respect towards you as a representative of the people of this community I appeal to you and other city councilors to not allow the current proposal to proceed forward with approval without asking the developer for major amendments to their plan. These amendments should start with scaling back the 12 storeys to 6. know that you do a lot of excellent work for the community. I can imagine that there are daily challenges that you need to manage. For the wellbeing of your constituents and their families and to ensure that a positive precedent is set for future developments that are sure to take place, I ask you to deny this request. You have the power and the influence to do so. Should the proposal move forward as is, to the detriment of our community, I will remember to reconsider my future voting selection. Sincerely, Property owner and residents 45 Plaza Court Kitchener, ON, Cc: Senior Planner Garrett Stevenson Mayor Berry Vrbanovic 2-124 1 51 9648 3 7 3 7 Community Support Connectio 11: 52:06 a.m. 07-31-2015 1 r7 L,2- rt,-T d� P/vv d b� [ — �r r 2-& --�S20-002 Appendix "E" G cEGEI V E RESIDENT COMMENT FORM l j 0 Gi�� j .y Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS ISI is il:,�i I; Milan Kovacevlc and Dean Kovacevic 1`10MMU!'')-Y"3;MPOES CE PT. 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Pleae return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 205 1 What do vnu like ahnut the mmnnsa19 2- What improvements do you SLmest for the Flfoposal7 3 3. Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accotdaiioe with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Sign2ture: Address: U Ox -`IIIA :�` � , f l Z 13 1 V9 Email: L% ' Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publidaation Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Wtchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX -019) 741-2624 TDDITYY.' 1-866-959-9994 garett.stevenson@kitchener. ca 0 2-125 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:26 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Proposed Plan for Avon and Fredrick St. Mr. Stevenson, I am writing you regarding the proposed application for building on the corner of Fredrick and Avon Streets. Firstly I am extremely concerned that I as a resident of Plaza Court has just found out about this plan today only 3 days before your cut off date for comments and I only found this out because I picked up a green flyer that was delivered to my neighbour's house- I did not receive any notice at my house. It is definitely not fair or appropriate that all the residents of our neighbourhood have not been given sufficient notice and time to respond to this application. It is only reasonable that during the summer time when this application is being made three or 4 days notice to the residents of the area does not allow time for everyone who may like to reply to do so as they may be on holidays which begs the question is this being rammed through? We have had several multi resident buildings constructed in the last few years with the owners of those sites complying with the designated Medium Rise Residential rule. Many of these new buildings have current vacancies as well as semis and town houses are being built on the old Notre Dame site. Therefore I see no reason why a high rise needs to be built when many current units could sit empty. Across the street from the proposed site is a church which uses both sides of the street to park. That corner becomes very congested and difficult to travel through - more traffic in the area would not make it safer. As for more commercial space- we have several variety stories located with in walking distance on Victoria street and Krug street- there is several commercial spaces for lease or sale along Fredrick Street and Victoria Street so I see no need to clutter up the environment with more empty space. It is definitely not fair to those many home owners who live close to that corner have invested in their properties for years to change the rules now. Many young families see this area to be very desirable and properties sell fast because of the city's current land use designation. I consider the change a huge hardship for the residents who already live here. Why should so many current residents suffer an economic loss through lowering property values so a small group of builders can maybe make a profit? The city has many other areas where this building can go and the land designation does not need to be changed. Thank -you for considering my comments - please contact me if their will be a public discussion I would love to attend. 2-126 Please consider extending the time for consultation and please make sure i4I5.Y-ATI% i 889' 6Rhe area are equally informed by mail before going forward so everyone has an equal chance to are their opinions... That is only fair! Respectfully, 44 Plaza Court Kitchener N2B 1V8 2-127 July 25, 2015 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING Attention: Garett Stevenson, BES, RPP, MCIP Senior Planner City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2G 4G7 RE: Official Plan Amendment OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Dear Mr. Stevenson, DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" JLJL 3 0 ., FUANNIRG3 DIVISION The purpose of us writing to you is to inform you that we are NOT in favour of the proposed Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS for properties at 859 and 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road. This plan is TOO DENSE and TOO BIG for the established community it is being proposed for. We are not opposed to development or intensification. We understand and respect the business minded desires of the developer and the financial benefits incurred for The City relative to development fees and an increased tax base. But in an established community, development and intensification should be done in such a way that serves as a stellar precedent for future development. Additionally it should serve as a positive change that everyone can profit from. We would kindly ask you and City Council to NOT allow the current proposal to proceed forward without asking the developer for major AMENDMENTS to their plan. These amendments should include reducing the number of storeys and addressing community infrastructure constraints. Specifically the proposal should include a scaling back from the proposed twelve storeys in height to a maximum of six, and not allowing for underground parking or the provision for a special use regulation. There are currently NO high rise, high density twelve storey buildings in the neighborhood. The majority are three stories with two buildings being six. The units proposed should all remain residential in nature thereby addressing the need for affordable housing. Furthermore, as mature trees have been cut down and with the intention to pave over most of the land, there should be the integration of green space and the consideration of enhancing the tree canopy with the planting of mature trees. Storm water drainage for the immediate and surrounding area needs to be replaced and expanded to be able to handle the increased physical demands. Traffic flow will be greatly affected with increased density, public movement and a special use regulation at an already very difficult intersection. In the winter time these issues will be exacerbated with snow plow removal and pile up. The developer has the moral responsibility to address these concerns for public health and safety. The City has an approved plan already on the books that allows properties found in the larger community to be designated as Low Rise Residential and Medium Rise Residential. In fact Low Rise Residential designation in our community has allowed for a variety of residential uses including single -detached, semi-detached, duplex, street -fronting townhouses and multiple dwellings. As already mentioned above there are a number of three storey buildings along Frederick Street. In addition there are two buildings that are six storeys in height. As a whole, these compatible developments integrate well into the community and have proven to work well. 2-128 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" The intention of the applicant is to build a high density, high rise twelve storey monstrosity of an apartment building containing one hundred and twenty nine units, business offices, and an underground parking garage in addition to a surface parking area. Their plan is TOO DENSE and TOO BIG for the established community. We understand and respect the desires of the Kovacevic family as business minded developers to maximize their profits and increase their influence. The higher they go, the bigger it is made, the more they will reap in financial benefits. However, their proposal changes the very character of the current neighbourhood both structurally and environmentally and does very little if nothing to address infrastructure constraints. If it were allowed to proceed forward without any major amendments, it would set a dangerous precedence not only for this particular developer who owns other local properties but also for other developers who are or might be considering being candidates for land use intensification. We will repeat for emphasis that we are not opposed to development and fully understand that it is inevitable. We can appreciate that it can be a positive move forward, but this community is not downtown, glass tower or high density, high rise condominium type. Established families make this their neighbourhood. The community enjoys a spirit of tranquility, and public safety. Might I add that there is a bee keeper and a school nearby that services a sensitive population of students. The current aging infrastructure is already under strain. The capacity of the current neighbourhood to absorb something as dramatically dense and large as this is at odds with the proposed overdelopment plan. This particular "spot" zoning amendment doesn't appear to be in accordance with a larger comprehensive, well considered visionary plan that benefits the community at large. This overdevelopment would appear to stand to the benefit of the developer and to the detriment of other owners and their land use rights in the area. Why should the right of a developer to develop their land uncharacteristically TOO DENSE, TOO HIGH and TOO BIG for an area supersede the collective rights of other existing stake holders in that area? Should any one aggressive developer be allowed to buy up residential parcels of land in an existing established neighbourhood, and build sky scrapers? No property owner or tenant who lives in that area would be left untouched. The established character of a community, infrastructure and traffic constraints, environmental impact concerns, public health and safety are all legitimate areas that need to be addressed in a collectively acceptable plan that would guide future redevelopment in the Rosemount area. We appreciate that good, affordable land to develop close to the city core is becoming scarce but that is no excuse to be negligible in how we steward proposals coming forward that will affect the future decision making process not only in the Rosemount area but also in other areas of Kitchener. We fully appreciate the challenges that you deal with daily and we are grateful that you are willing to listen to the concerns of those who call the area home. It is with a great deal of respect that we appeal to you for your review of this matter. The wellbeing of all of the constituents here in the Rosemount area is of paramount importance and depend on you, your position of power, to deny this request at the earliest possible occasion. Respectfully, Property owners and residents 49 Plaza Court Kitchener, ON Cc: Councilor Scott Davey Mayor Berry Vrbanovic 2-129 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/FIGS Zone Change Application ZC15/016/FIGS CTIE.I Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? +' ., x Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: 7 Email: Phone: _ L r Date: ~x �' 4 _ 1 C i ce- _ 1 To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal ,Affairs -and 1-1c sing's Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah._qov,on.ca/Page338.asox Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE. (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.• 1-866-969-9994 garett. ste venson@kitchener. ca �_ _ 2-130 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" R S.lEi�l�EC RESIDENT COMMENT FORM jul 0 : L Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC1 5/01 5/F/GS k I t: _I Ii NFR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic (. OKWUNI Y SERVICES DEPT. 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road PL^NININC. DI1 tISION Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3. Please provide any additional comments below: n - Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: _ Address: _ ©v P' 1 �fG f Gr �f �a X l� Email: Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDD I TYY: 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-131 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:16 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: RE: Avon Frederick Street Thank you for the information Garett, I had not previously been given a circulation package. Please see my comments below. . What do you like about the proposal? Work live space is a great opportunity to develop entrepreneurs. 2 What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Parking access needs to be from Frederick Street not Avon Road. A traffic study impacting the area needs to be included. Building height should be limited to the existing zoning. A topographical map with site lines to the surrounding area should be provided to show the loss of privacy in our backyards. 3. Please provide any additional comments below: Our area is experiencing an increase in traffic from the new buildings on River Rd. It is often difficult to enter River Rd from our street. I believe that once the new homes are occupied on the old Notre Dame school site the traffic will further increase on River Rd. We have lived in this area for 20+ years and purchased here because of the quiet atmosphere. There is no doubt the increase in traffic and the site lines to our property will negatively impact the quality of life, including safety, privacy and noise concerns, on our street. How is this increase in density going to affect school enrollment? Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: 70 Niaaara Road. Kitchener, ON N2B 1T2 Email: Phone: - Date: 2015-08-18 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX ( From: Ga rett. Stevenson@ kitchener. ca [ mai Ito: Ga rett. Stevenson@ kitchener. ca] Sent: August -18-15 9:07 AM To: Subject: RE: Avon Fredierick Street Hello Please see attached. The deadline has now ended, so I would kindly ask that you provide comments in the coming weeks. Thanks, 2-132 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 12:27 PM To: Garett Stevenson Cc: Subject: Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS: 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Hi Garett Stevenson As I was unable to enter my comments into the PDF and attach it so I have copied your PDF below and entered my comments. We are disappointed to see that the city would entertain significantly changing the make-up of an existing residential neighborhood. This is the second change in the neighborhood this year that seems to disregard the residents in the area. We look forward to hearing back from you on the final decision and the rational used to support it. Thanks Tanya DeGroot and David Wilkinson RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? Supports the "Places to Grow" act with new housing, however it proposes too many units and Does NOT support the current neighborhood make up 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 1) Allow the low rise to be rezoned to medium rise to align with the existing medium rise and abandon the requests for all rezoning to high rise A medium rise still allow for an 8 storey building which already exceeds the current 6 storey building in the area. Preference would be for the new buildings to align with the other buildings in the area that are built as 6 storey units or less. 2) Alter the site plan to have driveways off of Fredrick street which is a main artery designed for higher traffic volume. Avon road is a residential road and the increase in traffic proposed by the existing plan would greatly impact the safety in the neighborhood. 3. Please provide any additional comments below: The biggest concerns we have are 1) SAFETY The increased traffic congestion will significantly change the traffic patterns in the area. 2-133 Currently many motorists use Manchester/Niagara Road toDAV6WMrrd9 & access to Fredrick and/or Victoria Street. With 129 units PLUS commercial activity, traffic will increase greatly resulting in a decrease in the safety of the area especially for the children 2) PRIVACY A 12 storey building is totally out of character with the area and will result in a decrease in the privacy of the neighborhood houses. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: 62 Niagara Road Kitchener Email Phone: Date: July 30, 2015 To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDI TYY: 1-866-969-9994 �,arett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-134 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 9:02 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Avon Road and Frederick Street application Hello, Our home just received the green notice last week, and we were away on holiday. I trust that my comments herein will be considered for the staff report, though they are submitted after the July 31 deadline. The proposed building will serve Kitchener's need and the growing trend of denser living communities. It also seems that there is enough area to allow the construction of the building without looking too crowded. However, the 12 storey request troubles me. The closest rise building is just 6 stories (on Frederick), and is tucked away with mature growth trees, and includes far less that 129 units. (I was unable to determine the number of units quick enough to include here.) I hope the City is able to produce a virtual image of how a 12 storey building would present in the proposed location. It seems unfathomable that it would be seen as appropriate and in the nature of the existing near- by buildings. A building of 6 storeys, and 8 at most would be more attractive. I am also curious to see the traffic projections for the building's tenants and the commercial traffic expected. Are the only entrance and exit from Avon Road? Surely this must present concerns about the volume of traffic which will be added. Pedestrians looking to head to Victoria Street will undoubtedly be tempted to cross near their building, where there are no lights or pedestrian crossing areas. Finally, the present landowners have paid little concern to the appearance of the dwellings and outside area. I would hope that the upkeep of any dwelling to replace the present one would have greater committment to the upkeep of the building, and enforcement of expectation of its tenants. Thank you for this forum to express my thoughts. I look forward to receiving the date and time of the future public meeting. Regards, 44 Monterey Road 2-135 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 8:58 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Resident Comment Form re Zone Change ZC15/015/F/GS RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road I am not happy with this proposal to build a 12 storey apartment building with 129 units and the driveway off Avon Road. An apartment of this size with businesses on the lower floor and the access off Avon Road will cause considerable traffic problems. Having lived in this neighborhood for 35 years I know how difficult it is to in and out of the neighborhood from Avon Road. The cars come whipping around the corner from Victoria Street making it difficult to get out off Avon to Frederick. With the additional traffic this proposal will bring it will make for an extremely bad intersection. Also with the church across the street and all of their traffic which sometimes has cars lined up on both sides of the street will make Avon Road very busy and extremely frustrating for all the residents getting in and out of this subdivision. Also I wish to express my unhappiness about the amount of time the residents in this subdivision were given to respond. The letter is dated July 8th but I did not receive my letter until July 24th giving me only one week to reply. 32 Monterey Road Kitchener July 29, 2015 Live Well, Laugh Often, Love Much 2-136 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:38 PM To: Garett Stevenson Cc: Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: Proposed zoning changes Mr. Stevenson, Today a letter arrived at my house dated July 8th, that outlined the proposed zoning changes for properties at the corner of Frederick St. and Avon Road (application # ZC15/015/F/GS). I have some serious concerns regarding these proposed changes. They are as follows: Why did we just receive this notice one day before the deadline for resident comments to be considered in the formulation of a staff report? A little over 24 hours is not nearly enough time to read through the information provided and to formulate an informed response. After talked to several of my neighbours, I believe this deadline must be extended as they had just received the July 81h letter today. Parking and road congestion is already periodically an issue on Avon Rd. due to the presence of two nearby places of worship. Often there is only enough room for one-way traffic due to parking on both sides of the road. Adding more tenants and businesses will only make this situation worse. Is the church across from this proposed high-rise aware of this plan? Often the only reasonable route to travel down River Rd. from my street during peak traffic hours is to take Frederick to River and turn left. As there are no stop signs or lights, turning left onto River Rd. from Manchester is nearly impossible. Given a reasonable amount to time to further consider all the potential impacts of this proposal and to have discussions with my neighbours, I could probably come up with additional concerns. The delay in the delivery of the city's notice in this matter needs to be investigated and dealt with. Yours truly, 80 Monterey Cres. Kitchener, ON 2-137 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:02 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 12 story high rise application zc15/015/f/gs op15/d5/f/gs dear sir, I am contacting you to register my opposition to the variance requested by the developer for the properties at 859 and 867 Fredrick street and the property at 39 avon road, here in kitchener. Although I have not been contacted by YOU r office regarding this application, l am contacting you to express my concerns about hour it affects the the immediate area around the proposed development. First, this development, even at the allowed maximum height of 8 stories, is excessive for the neighbourhood. The oburch acrrass the street from this development on Avon Road, already causes major congestion, and driving dangers From the high volume of ofn-street parking that it causes. That is, however, not going to change. The addition of the development proposed will make Avon and Fredrick an extremely dangerous piece of street, seven days a week, Bad enough at eight stories, worse yet at twelve. 129 units represent an unrealistic expansion of the number of households using Avon Road. On another point, a twelve story building in this area is totally outside of the neighbourhood character and housing content. Nothing for a very long distance away is even close to the height of development that is proposed, This project belongs on the LFT route where high density is encouraged, not in suburban Kitchener, It is my understanding that I can request a copy of the site plans and other pertinent information that is available to the public and I would like a copy. I would also like to be informed of any public meetings where my concerns can be heard. Thankyou 61 Monterey Road Kitchener, Ont. N2B1V4 A daily user of the Avon Street access to Fredrick Street 2-138 Garett Stevenson From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Garett, Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:30 AM Garett Stevenson Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" I'm writing with regards to a document that some of my neighbors on Monterey Crescent had received, concerning Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS. I did not receive a copy of this document from the City of Kitchener, but just wanted to add my two cents. I think the plan to develop the property from how it is currently being utilized might be an improvement, but I am opposed to changing what the property is currently zoned for. I'm worried that these zone changes might result in even greater vehicle and pedestrian traffic to our quiet neighborhood, as Avon Rd. is already a heavily used throughway for people who are in a hurry to access Frederick St and Victoria St. In addition, I'm also concerned of the direct visibility into our backyards that residents living in a twelve -story building will likely have, compromising the privacy of my family and my neighbors'. Thank you very much for considering my opinion on this issue. Best regards, 88 Monterey Cres. Kitchener, ON N2B 1V5 2-139 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 3:39 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Zone change at Avon Rd and Frederick st. Good afternoon sir. My name is and I live at 96 Monterey Rd in Kitchener. I've received paperwork in regards to a high rise being proposed on this property that will affect the privacy of my backyard. I disagree with this zone change application completely. If you could contact me to further discuss this matter at your convenience it would be greatly appreciated. My number is, Thank you. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. 2-140 Please provide your feedback u, return (by mail, email or fax) to tt 1. What d.oyou like, about the DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/45/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/0151F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Clean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road ng this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form.. Please address listed below by July 39, 2095. 17 2. What; improvements do you suggest for the proposall r" Y- 3_ Please provide any additional comments below -4 r _ , A- ..li I r e Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form.. to ensure that we receive only one set of -comments from :each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include,8 name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address; oef-4 s Email; Phone: Date: . To loam more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs arFd 1-loosing's plAblication CltFaep' Ouioe to Land Use Planning at, J11_tD'f1Vwryvw.mah gov.on.calPaa038,aspx Please direct all questions; comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson Cidy Raft, P-40- i9bx 9998 Kftcherrer, Onfario, Canada,, N2G 4G7 PHONL (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX, ('519) 741-2624 Tt7D} YY' 9-666-969-8994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-141 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC1 5/01 5/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. I AA/hmf rJn vnii R -n nk—++ho mm—,10 ? What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? E n i I .. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address Email: Phone .. . Date: C�l 11 _11F ? To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah..qov.on.ca/Page338.asox Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-142 July 21, 2015 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING Attention: Mr. Garen Stevenson, BES, RPP, MCIP Senior Planner City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 200 King St. West Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Dear Mr. Stevenson DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RECEIVED JUL 2 4 W 15 COMMUNITY DE 'i..MNIN a rxvj m Our family has resided at #99 Monterey Cr. for forty-one years. We are the second family to occupy our home where we enjoy the benefits of the city's largest crescent area and the pie shaped lot that living on a crescent affords us. We have always taken pride of ownership and revelled in our large backyard and the amenities of our quiet neighbourhood. Thank you for sending us the letter containing the plans and proposed changes for the corner of Frederick Street and Avon Street. We were dismayed at the ramifications for our Rosemount neighbourhood that would ensue were this proposed zone change to go into effect. The June 22nd issue of Macleans magazine published an article concerning the problem of homes in quaint suburbs being demolished in order for mammoth edifices to be erected which loom over the single family dwellings that first were built in said subdivisions. My heart went out to those who find themselves seemingly dwarfed beside lavishly large homes. , Little did I realize that we would be facing more than a large home looming on our horizon but a TWELVE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX!!! As we drive down Frederick Street the apartments on Margaret Avenue and Queen Street are very evident as they tower over the trees and into the skyscape. They are much closer to the downtown core than we are here in the Rosemount area. Needless to say we are distressed and opposed to this zone change for many reasons.... 1. AESTHETICS The charm and appeal of the homes built in the 1960's which dot our neighbourhood streets would be greatly altered in a negative way by having such an enormous edifice towering over the whole suburb. 2-143 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" 2. POPULATION This neighbourhood is mostly comprised of single dwelling homes, although of recent years there have been some additions of multiple dwellings appearing on Frederick Street and Avon Street and River Road, all of which are tastefully unobtrusive in their size, and the amount of people that have been added to area has been modest. One cannot say the same about a twelve story building housing people plus businesses. 3. TRAFFIC Avon Street has cars parked on either side when the church is holding meetings and now with the mosque on Victoria Street, cars and pedestrians are very visible on the street when their congregation meets. People also park there when the beauty salon parking lot is full which is located on Frederick Street across from the corner of Avon and Frederick St. These cars are using the same portion of the street for parking that will be impinged upon by those visiting the high rise along with the comings and goings of the residents there. Congestion will be a factor. 4. NOISE The influx of people going to the businesses, and residing in the high rise will mean the intensification of noise. b. DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES Our neighbourhood will be negatively impacted if this monstrous plan is brought into reality. Rather than sitting on our back deck watching the sunsets through the spaces in the trees, we will see mortar, bricks, cement and whatever building materials are used, to make a towering man made structure looming up above the tree tops. Our home will not have the appeal nor the value that it holds at the moment if this zone change goes into effect. Those are our thoughts. We implore you not to allow this plan to take place in our little Rosemount neighbourhood. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Sincjerely, 99 Monterey cr., Kitchener, ON N213 1 V6 cc Councillor Scott Davey Mayor Barry Vrbanovic 2-144 uJ/ZIl iW�. Lc. �Z ..+S J+"+1 Llidf 1'11,.Rwl r'LOD "%A.+UU'I 1, II 4tz:i r�.VG GAJ DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Zone change application ZC1S/015/F/GS We would like to register our objections to the proposed zoning changes. Our primary objection Is to the scale of the proposed structure and the attendant traffic and parking problems that it would inflict upon our quiet residential neighbourhood of largely single family homes. Physically and ascetically, it is completely out of proportion and context to the rest of the neighbourhood, We believe that the ambience that we have enjoyed for many years, with our neighbours would be sacrificed by the proposal. When purchasing a property in such a neighbourhood, one does not expect a twelve story monolith to suddenly rise up, in our backyards, where single family detached dwellings previously existed. We rely upon the zoning in place, to protect us against this possibility. This is certainly the case in this instance. Additionally, there is the ancillary problem of traffic and parking, contained in the proposal. There is too little parking for the tenants, much less their visitors, or commercial clients that are also contained in the proposal. The parking would spill out into our neighbourhood. Avon Road in particular, will suffer from this. The proposal shows that while the building may front onto Frederick Street, the only vehicular access is from Avon Road. Except for two small apartments, the balance of the street is single family homes, and the proposal is not in keeping with this environment. We suggest that the existing zoning adequately deals with the nature of our neighbourhood, and should not be changed. Yours very tr 2-145 U u I- LU. LV I ) 7 . L'>rylyl UR'J. n, 1Y N. VULIVIMIN 0( MOOUV 140. I iv i DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/FIGS K*�JER Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevlc 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3 Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each Individual, staff can only consider comments If they include a name and address, Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: ` Signature: _ Address: Email: Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process, please fefer to the Mil!-5try of fdunidpal Affalrs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah..00v.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDOI7YY: 1.866-969-9994 garett. s to venson@kitchener. ca ��� _ C � 1- , 5 t C�t�t�Ufl, YS :!?'+IICE DEPT, PI-ANi`i N(-',� DIVISION 2-146 JUL-CV-CUID 14:Cf rrofn: I0: J17f°f1CbC`-F s.1--1' - - �./�l,�Tt%�����•�/'�•�Q' ,�G �— �G[ D��o!ff9ppendix«E„ RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15105/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC19/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please Provide your feedback using this comment form, if required, Please attach addit/onal pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or f8x) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this farm- To ensure that we recelve only one sat of comments front each IndMduai, staff ran only consider cornments If they include a name and address. Please rroto that all comments and addresses noted ©rr this form may be used es part Of a public staff' rmparl; however your name and any othar personal identifying information will be kept confidential in a cordance with Freedom of Information regulations, Name: Signature: Address: w — - -�-es f-0 1 ; G�'P�►-� �. Email: - Phone: Date: 41� rAl To loam more about the planning pMcess, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http.,I/www.rnah.gov.on.ca/Po-qe338,asp Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson Clly Hall, P.O. Box 1918 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (619) 741-2624 7DOITYY.• 1-866-969-9994 garett,stevenson@kltchener. ca 2-147 k M221 GRH Lab KW Ki��( HL?fJ= 16:54:41 2015-08-02 1 11 RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road DSD -20-002 Appendix e"E" A°!J 04, P,0M UNITY SHFMCGES DEFT. FLANN!NQ';, DIVISION Plsase Provfde your feedback using this rornment iorrrr. If required, please attach additiaraai pegs to th/s form, Please -I(try mall, emelt OF fair fo the addresslis#e d below by Juty 31, 2015. I. What do you like about the proposal? What improvements do you for the proposal? s 1 3- Please provide9any additional comments below: n ,91 1' Ssw ` -1 + {` , # Thank you For t Ing the Ilrrle tD Hit out #his form. To ensure that we receive individual, staff carr, D is form may consider cornrngnts If they inciude a only ofle set of Comments from each addresses noted on this name and address. please n41a that all comments and y be used ns part of a public; staff repflrt; however r name Idenllfying Information wJJI be kept confidential to accordance with Freadom of lnfr�rmati0 rrreguJatipnsd any other perSwal Name: Signature: Address: 't ~71 Email: Phone: Date: w To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: h :l ^rrw.mah t�v r r� c alP� - esr x r� Please direct all questions, comments and forms to : i , 7 ` /5 Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1116 Kitchener Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.1-666-969-9994 garett. ste venson@kitchener, ca 2-148 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/FIGS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS OCR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. What do you like about the proposal? % r 3, Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for takin f the time to fill out this form. To' ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: /mac' ,,fir �,�v✓:e"� <� �% Email Phone: Date: e,4( To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.asDx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett. ste venson@kitchener. ca RECEIVE� AUG C 4 ; 1%. lei NG D(�rl�:lC!� 2-149 6 2, What improvements do you sugge t for the propos I? If iz3 3, Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for takin f the time to fill out this form. To' ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: /mac' ,,fir �,�v✓:e"� <� �% Email Phone: Date: e,4( To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.asDx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett. ste venson@kitchener. ca RECEIVE� AUG C 4 ; 1%. lei NG D(�rl�:lC!� 2-149 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 9:48 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Zoning application for Avon and Frederick Dear Mr. Stevenson My husband, children and I live on Manchester at Avon and I just received information from my neighbour about the proposed zoning change. l may have missed your deadline of Friday, but would like to register our objection to the 12 storey building. First and most Fniportantly would be the increased traffic in our neighbourhood, As the City of Kitchener is already aware, the traffic on Avon and Manchester being used as a through road are already heavy. I know that many traffic studies have been done and speed bumps considered, With 129 additional units being added, the traffic would be unbearabJe in what is supposed to be a quiet area_ Secondly, our tax dollars were used recently to buiJd the 2 triplexes? That are slated to be torn down?[ Enough said there_ We would be ok with a smaller building such as the neighbouring one already on F=rederick, perhaps 5-6 stofie? We would appreciate notification of any meetings through this email address, thanks 591 Manchester Sent from Yahoo Mail for Pad 2-150 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 7:39 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 39 Avon Road Dear Mr. Stevenson: I think the proposed zone change for this property should be denied. Avon Road is not a wide road. Today I drove down the road when cars were parked on both sides and it felt tight to get through. A twelve storey building will certainly result in overflow parking on Avon and it just cannot accommodate it. I can only image what difficulty school buses might have if there are people parking on both sides of the street. Additionally, the proposal is totally out of character with the surrounding properties. Avon is mostly single family dwellings with the odd low rise apartment. Even when one ventures out to Frederick Street the apartments there are not twelve storeys. The current designation of Low Rise perfectly suits the location and should remain as is. 624 Manchester Road 2-151 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 11:35 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Avon and Frederick I find it difficult to believe that you would even consider an apartment building of that size at that corner. I assume that would mean at least 100 units .At one and a half cars for each I can't imagine the traffic trying to get out on Frederick Street at busy times. I live on Manchester Rd. and at busy times it is very difficult to take a left hand turn on to River Road. So I go up Avon and take a left on to Frederick. This used to be easy.lt no longer is as traffic has increased so much. Now you want over one hundred more cars trying to get out on to Frederick?? The Rosemount suburb of Kitchener is a quiet, lovely area with many homes occupied by older folks. It is a true jewel. Please don't mess with it. We already have to put up with a bingo palace that we didn't want. The New Apostolic Church on Avon Rd. when having services fills Avon Rd. with cars and traffic . Where are the visitors of this huge building going to park when they have services? Finally, send your by law people to look at the property at the corner of Frederick and Avon . It looks like trailer trash.Cars on grass etc. I have even had company that have commented one it. 611 Manchester Rd. 2-152 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Oficial Plan Amendment Application OP75/05/F/GS Zone. Change Application ZC1610151FIGS W-VC*rJzR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 $ 867 Frederick Street and .39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form, Pla> l se return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed belowr by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? ' What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 31- Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for taking the Gare to Fill out this form- To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from eacb indlvldual, staff can only cons1dor coriments if they include a name and address. please note that all cornments and acid rasses noted on this form may be used as .part of a po. iC staff report .however your name and any other pe'sonal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: — Address_ Email: Phone: --- — — 021tF!, —i 11h To learn more about the planning process, Please refer t4 the Mfnlstry of Murihcfpal lairs and kpu,sing's publlc,ation Citizens' Guide to I_arid Use Planning at: W .calPa e� Please direct all questions, comments and forms to. Garen Stevenson CityHall, P.O. Box 1118 IQtchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE.' (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 7DDiTYY. 1-866-969-9994 garett,stevenson@kitchener. ce 2-153 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" I RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Pian Amendment Application OP15105/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC1 5101 51F/GS Ki TC f-ir R Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. flicass, return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2095. What do you like about the proposal? '�a 1-171 :� { _!—cuT 2. What improvements do you suggest for the DroDosal? Please provide any additional halm". 5 Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal Identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address:�3 .�'i,,t7�rS Email: A4 Phone: Date: To learn more about the p anning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at httpl/www.mah.4ov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to. Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1918 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE., (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.• 1-866-969-9994 garett stevenson@kitchener ce 2-154 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15105/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS F IT:[ ;elf Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. do you like about the proposal? 3. ' lea efet T is I fa ✓r r/ r r _ prov' vr�any additional COW rnenis bel Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each Individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal ldentifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Bate: _rJ� To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: httr>://www.mah.qov.on.ca/Paae338.asl)x Please direct all quesSons, comments and forms to. Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O_ Box 9118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE. (599) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.• 9-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ce 4 .e. - tir /,� DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/FIGS Zone Change Application ZC151015IF/GS _NnR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1, What do you like about the proposal? Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will bei kept confidential in,accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: htt :llwww'.mah.. ov.on.ca/Pa e338.as x Please direct all questions, comments and forms to. Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.0. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.• 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application 01115/05/F/GS - Zone Change Application ZC1.5/015IF/GS iTu ik..N-i'-R Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovaeevic. 8591€ 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. if required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3_ Please rcruide any additional comments below: SIG 1 I SiE All AJG C ,V4MG E 8SO I1 � L k1l Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: V j To team more about the planningprocess, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at hftp.'I/www.mah..qov.on.ca[Page338.asox Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.0. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE. (519) 741=2200 x 7070 FAX. (519) 744-2624 TDDtT"YY 1-6.66-969-9994 garett stevenson@kitchenerca K 2-157 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" I RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP151051FIGS Zone Change Application ZC1510151F/GS KJ1ZTIFNi-R Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form, ff required, please attach addtionai pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address fisted below by July 31, 2615. What do you like about the proposal? What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3. Please provide any additional comments below AA) Thank you for taking the time to ftil out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each Individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report however your name and any other personal Identifying information will be kept confidential, in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. �% Name: Signature: _ Address: Email: t Phone: Date: ( To leam more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Plannincd at http-;l/ .rnah. ov.on.calPa 6338 as x Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City HO P. f}. OSx 111a Kitchener, Onlaw, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE. {519)141-2200x 7070 FAX (519) 749-2624 71'301TYY 7 866-959-99 gereif stevensonWichener_ca 2-158 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" i RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Chft—ial Plan Amendment AAppReadon OP15/05/F/GS znrm Chango Applicat;tarl ZC15101WGS �'11C 1 Milan Kmmcevic and 0aan Kovacevic Phone: 459 & 667 Fra de6ok Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. !f required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 37, 2074. What do you like about the proposal? 2. 2_. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Please provide any additional comments below- Name, - Ad d rie elow- Thank you For tEiking the time to fill out this form- To ensure that we receive only roe set of Comments from each individual, staff can only Consider cornmenm if Vw-y include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a publft staff report, lLowever your name and any other personal ideratiFy;ng information will be kept confidential in accrdance with Freedom of Information regulalirmis_ Blaine:ILrldre 5A)P IES'�2!g nCt r, Email: Phone: Date: Z L16 41:5 To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at http:l/www.mah.ciov.on,ca/Pi2oe338.asPx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to. Garett Stevenson Ctf}r Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kft fewer, Onlarho, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHbW ($19) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) ,741-2624 TDDiTYY .- 1-666-969-9994 garetistevermn@a/otchener ca 2-159 Please -RESIDENT-COMMENT PORM OfflCial Plan Am pridment Application OP16I051FI.GS Zone Cha ng e Applic6tion ZCJ SMIff. pe S Mian Kovace-vic and O]h - KOaLOVW 856 & 867 Red erickS'treet`aiTd 39 Avon Rdad% t Uskv this r-ammont farm. if reqwfzd D the ad&9ss Aqed below by July 31, ; 1. What do you" like about the Proposal? 2. What ir- OrqVeernehts -doy you suggest for the, roposal?, 3. Please provide! any, DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" attach advitmal pages to 0to"- Please Thank� U4 WtAMN the t1me to rill out this form.. To e h - yoca' MUM that we reW only one suL of lme comments from each indivjo,4;�], staff can only consider c6MM- enfs. it }hey include: a name and. address. Please note that all.c9mhts' andaddresses 110ted On fids form may bd used as partofa:public. staff report.- how'Wer your'narne and 'any other I personalI . identifying Information will be kept Freedom oflaformatiDn reVlAuns. Name: Signature: Address: pLtr-V Pholne:, Date, To learn more about the . he planninU process, p)oaE;e refer to the Ministry pc Mu;jiirjpaj Affajf-5 and Housing's pubNcafion Citize s' Guide to Land Planning at: Mjwwky 'n mah.quy. on. cg/Pgqg238. aspx Flease OL-vf all questbas, comments and forms4w Gareft &+� nsqn city Higil. P. O. Box I I is Kkhaner. ()F"ark)r Canada, N2 -G 4G7 PHOAhF,' (519741-2WO x 1Wfj FAX 1519) 741-2624 TDDITff '1-8615-9.59-9994 garett. &t0venson@kjtchener.6a 2-160 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM FREGOVED Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/FIGS 1'4� Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS r KITCHENER Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic A0 ` 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road i,4 Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to thug r grrrw:?leas return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1- What do you like about the proposal? i , _ l / L .. ; 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3. Please provide any additional comments below: r ,K 1/W S � ZS O Irl, t / vee ,ea .e- 1--' - O4`16Af PtTof s' ,1' . ' / ,, �#ori �' L u !'.Z �57✓Z y7Pcc% 2e IVIA16 Thank you for taking the time to Fill oul this form. To ensure tha we receive only one set of comments fram each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address:q n ,S' /� rr ; , . Lmail: f Phone: Date: c To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: hitp://wxn ,v.mah.gov.on.ca/Pafae338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDD I TYY: 1-866-969-9994 garett.stevenson@kitchener. ca I -Q 14/may ' d a . f -�-/( 6'6 C11/6 S 4-t 2-161 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? P 2. , What improvements do you . - r S. Pleasa provide any additiongl oornmants below. f S r'_,'4 fr'f �3r.. !�. Y4�r:' - f r��*I•�'�`Y[ �.'9 • tiL' ,-, C� �/�.° ti [i-; i.-i� !r''�t CFS f r .ef �•.l ,�.i,l,rt r �1'a�],.' J � a�,+d: t'�e'C�r bfr-SPr- �.i r-7 Y l 'a T a!3: r _F .r r'` II r r' r �l-r EfG.i, CC ! ., �C'ttf%� •�'y �y i's Te_­$1'1ri{r W A (I FY`xr' / n� f'`4 �' tai. � Wit' yL J •�:� i r fl �'ln i''Rrr E' f' 4'�r:�tA� ii 5�i'�^�=t���Y f��L-% Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of cornroents from each individual, staff can only consider cGmrrients If they include a name and address. Please note that all r;ornF1LF;:ni,; and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: To leam more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://vvww.mah.aov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 V — Yf FAX (519) 741-2624 C_ L.A ti.,.0 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett.stevenson@kitchener. ca n, 3El=s'.11t;EC Dr_1,7. ptINNING. Dib'iSIJN 2-162 Ai if, 4,, -;-o �l-'�r - DSD -20-002 Appendix «E„ Ale f� J ` o 1 e A[l - (" #L r' c if` � R, j. ! ''' ;�4 v.;! r ek eez 5- -t' A ��• t ,��,c � cf ���' �"� r1� +-gyp ! 2-163 j *01 Kn I R RESIDENT COIIAiWENT FORM Official Plan Anwrtclmert ApPllcatl0n 012-i51tt51F1GsS Zone Change App;ication ZC 6/0151F1 Milan Kovawvic and Dean Kavacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and. 39 Avon Road DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Please provide your feedback using this =arrant fnrrzr, if requited, .please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail- email or fax) to trae address fisted bela,p by July 31, 2415. 1. What do you like about the proposal? In 3. Plwa is provide any addt#lonal CGMfnents betow.. Tbank you for taking the "G to fill oar[ 919 form- To ensuA that we r iue only one set of wmments ftm each Individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a luras and addrnss- Pled note that all =Tnments and addresses noted un this faun may be used as ,part of a public staff repast, h€ mzvof your name and any other personal identifying information wii be lkept corn5derdial in a=rdarnce with Freedom of ln,20 malim reguulotions, Name- ILI– Signature: F — Emall: Phone: - Date, J01- To learn more about the planning procoss, please rnfcr to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to U;id Use Planning aL inl�:llwvrn-an�Y�,cio�,urs.�alPage��$.2�o�c Please direct all queWonsr comments and forms to: .arOa St0verxWn C ;qty Hall, P. D. sox 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N26 4G7 PHONE (519) 749-2200 x 7070 1,AX-- {519) 741-2624 FDD7YYY' 1-606-969-9994 garelYs€euens�ra�c��khener.Ca 2-164 gowhmn5%Jcfc August 13, 2015 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" montrOal • ottaWa - toronto - hamilton - waterloo region - Calgary - vanoouver • beiJing • moscow • london VIA E-MAIL GARETT.STEVENSON@KITCHENER.CA Community Services Department Planning, City of Kitchener City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 Dear: Mr. Stevenson Re: Resident Opposition and Comments Form 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Carlton Thorne Direct 519-569-4561 Direct Fax 519-569-4061 cariton.thorne@gowlings.com File No. K0654183 We represent in her opposition to Official Plan Amendment Application OP/15/05/F/GS (the "Proposed OPA") and Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS (the "Proposed ZCA"), the owner of 843 Frederick Street in Kitchener, Ontario, N2B 2B4. , has resided in this home for approximately 60 years. As I home is located immediately adjacent to the Proposed Development (as defined below), objection should be given significant weight and consideration by the City of Kitchener ("City"). The Proposed Development We understand that Mr. Milan Kovacevic and Mr. Dean Kovacevic (collectively, "Kovacevic") have submitted a proposal to redevelop the site located at 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road (the "Subject Site") with a 12 storey multiple dwelling building that contains 129 units, including 5 live -work units and some commercial space on the ground floor. Moreover, it is proposed to include 1.25 parking spaces per unit located within an underground parking garage and surface parking area (altogether, the "Proposed Development"). The City's Current Official Plan and Zoning By-law Both the City's current Official Plan and Zoning By-law do not permit the Proposed Development. With respect to the Official Plan, a portion of the Subject Site is designated as Medium Rise Residential and a portion of the Subject Site is designated as Low Rise Residential. The Medium Rise Residential designation permits building heights no greater than 8 storeys while the Low Rise Residential designation permits building heights no greater than three storeys in height. Gowling Lafleur Henderson up - Lawyers • Patent and Trade -mark Agents 50 Queen Street North - Suite 1020 • PO Box 2248 • Kitchener • Ontario • N2H 6M2 • Canada T 519-576-6910 F 519-576-6030 gowiings.com 2-165 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" gowlinde Moreover, the City's current Zoning By-law does not permit the Proposed Development. A portion of the Subject Site is zoned Residential Eight (R-8) while another portion is zoned Residential Three (R-3) Opposition to the Pro o -ed Development and associated OPA ang �C It is the position of 1 that the City should deny Kovacevic's Proposed OPA and ZCA for the following, among other, reasons: A: Adverse Impacts on the Community 1. Unacceptable Traffic Impacts The Subject Site is not suitable for the Proposed Development as it will create unacceptable adverse traffic impacts on the Community. The addition of 129 units, including 5 live -work units with commercial space, will produce significant additional traffic in this residential neighbourhood. 2. Unacceptable Noise Impacts The Subject Site is not suitable for the Proposed Development as it will create unacceptable adverse noise impacts within this residential neighbourhood. 3, Substantial Loss of Privacy and Amenity Space The Proposed Development, if approved, will be too intensive, and at a height and scale which will be entirely out of keeping with this residential neighbourhood. There are no high-rise buildings in this residential neighbourhood. The Proposed Development will cause a significant loss of privacy and the use and enjoyment of amenity space by ind nearby residents. 4. Possible Safety Concerns The Proposed Development will introduce a large number of new individuals into this residential neighbourhood. Owing to the significant number of individuals capable of residing within the Proposed Development, it is possible that safety and security within the Community will suffer. 5. Not in Keeping with the Existing Character of the Neighbourhood The existing character of the neighbourhood is single storey, low density detached residential with generous amounts of landscaped open space. A 12 storey high-rise building fronting the corner of Frederick Street and Avon Road will be completely out of keeping with the surrounding residential character. Page 2 2-166 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" j�owlincic 6. Negative Impact on Street Frontaaes The orientation of the high rise building on the Subject Site, with the minimum street setbacks proposed, is not conducive to a 12 storey "slab" building, which appears void of front step -backs and any meaningful transition. The proposed built form will result in negative impacts to both street frontages, and to Ms. Shierholtz's adjoining lands. 7. lnsufficigrLt Landsca,pirtg Rel@ ive to Open Parking Areas. The amount of on-site landscaping relative to open parking areas appears entirely insufficient particularly given the highly landscaped character of the existing residential neighborhood. 8_ Negative Impact on Residential Pnoperty Values Pursuant to the foregoing, has reasonable fears that all of the foregoing negative impacts will not only adversely affect her use and enjoyment of her home, but also her property value and the property values of the other residents located within the Community. B: Contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 9. The Proposal Does Not Conform to the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 The Proposed OPA and ZCA are not consistent with section 1.1.3.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (the "PPS") which directs all Planning Authorities to identify appropriate locations within their boundaries for intensification and redevelopment. In conjunction with the Provincial Growth Plan, the intensification objectives of the PPS are to be implemented by way of a municipal implementation strategy that sets density targets and allocates this density to specified Intensification Areas. Map 2 of the City's Official Plan identifies Intensification Areas within the City, all of which exclude the Subject Site. Locationally, the Proposed Development is inconsistent with the policy direction of the PPS. C: Contrary to the Provincial Growth Plan 10. The Proposal Does Not Conform to Provincial Growth Plan The Proposed OPA and ZCA is contrary to Section 2.2.2.1(b) of the Provincial Growth Plan which directs the type and scale of intensification proposed by this application, only to those designated Intensification Areas within the City as shown on Map 2 of the City's Official Plan. The Subject Site is not within an intensification area. Page 3 2-167 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" r D: Contrary to Official Plan Policies 11. The Proposal Does Not Conform to Urban Design Objectives in the City's Official Plan The Proposed OPA and ZCA are contrary to Sections 15.D.3.3 and 15.D.3.4 of the City's Official Plan as the Proposed Development does not conform to the majority of the Urban Design objectives found at Section 11.1 of the Official Plan. 12. Th.e Proposal Does Not Conform to the Citv's Intensiflca;tlon Areas within the Citv's Off Icial Plan As noted in No. 10 above, the Subject Site's location does not conform to the City's designated Intensification Areas. In short, the Proposed Development is situated in the wrong location. There is no Provincial or municipal Official Plan policy imperative which warrants the proposed scale and intensity of development at this location. 13. The Proposal Does Not Conform to the Criteria Required for High Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan The Proposed OPA and ZCA are contrary to Section 15.D.3.26 of the City's Official Plan respecting the High Rise Residential designation. There is no identified preservation imperative on the property and moreover, the proposed built form will in no way elevate this property to some future "landmark" status. E: Prematurity '14,_ The Propose -1 OPA and ZGA is Premature It is our position that the Proposed OPA and ZCA should be deemed premature at this time. The lack of a formal site plan application, particularly given the magnitude of development proposed, completely denies our client the ability to properly assess the built form and related site impacts. Until a formal site plan application is filed, at the very least, this application should be deferred. F: Special Regulations 15. The Live -Work Uses are Void of Zoning Controls Further to the reasons provided above, the Kovacevic request for a Special Regulation permitting additional quasi -commercial and other home business uses In conjunction with the Proposed Development should not be granted. The 5 live -work uses vWll potentially allow a wide variety of uses (i.e. academic instruction, artisan's establishment, convenience retail day care faeliity, financial establishment, personal services, studio, canine and feline grooming or training (nes outside activity), printing establishment, and office). These uses, which are without any land use impact Page 4 2-168 gowlincsc DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" assessment, are inconsistent with the Subject Site's location, and are more appropriately located in an Intensification Area along an Urban or Arterial Corridor, under a commercial zoning. CONCLUSION For these and other grounds as may become evident as this application evolves, Ms. Schierholtz hereby formally objects to the Proposed OPA and ZCA as the Proposed Development does not constitute good planning. The Proposed OPA and ZCA do not conform to a significant number of the residential policy and urban design imperatives of the Official Plan, nor do the land use changes requested conform to the PPS and Provincial Growth Plan's direction respecting intensification and redevelopment. The Kovacevic application is lacking detailed site plan support, and therefore at the very least, should be deferred until a formal site plan application is submitted. Pursuant to the foregoing, and based on the information currently available, it is our position that the Proposed OPA and ZCA should be denied. Yours truly, GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP Carlton Thorne Cc: John Doherty and Rose Johnson (Gowlings LLP) Cc: Mayor Vrbanovic and Councillor Scott Davey, Ward 1 K0554183\EDC_LA1M 1353217\7 Page 5 2-169 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: J- - Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:34 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: FW: Application for rezone Avon Rd and Frederick sts. I am against rezoning the property at the Avon and Frederick to a 12 story dwelling. Even the current designations for Medium Rise and Low Rise were unacceptable to me. Ours is a simple residential area and high rises aren't necessary as they may be in the downtown area. 121 Elkington Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 1S1 2-170 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: - Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:11 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Resident Comment Form for 859 and 867 Frederick St and 39 Avon Rd don't like anything about the proposal. I don't like the fact that the building will have 129 units, which is going to create a lot more traffic in a residential area where a lot of kids play. don't like the fact that it will be the highest building in the area and will over see Rosemount School where my kids play a lot. I feel a 5 storey building would be fine, but 12 stories is too high and too much traffic. 53 Burlington Drive, Kitchener 2015-07-30 2-171 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS - Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1 _ What do you like about the proposal? 2, What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? TOS r 1 r## � ��� ��s�;as�����.�r�,a�.�iiir�s ��sL■`A�.L��ii��fi�ifi�si�■r�+s�r� t�� _:� Please provide any additional comments below: rU�EE(.<,io L 22C E-6'aZZM all -,k VO --[ I l l i< &f Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider commenls ff Ihey Include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: Erat fir. . 4 To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: htto://www.mah.ciov.on.ca/Page338.aso Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.' 1-866-969-9994 garett. ste venson@ kitche ner. ca 2-172 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/0151F/GS KAaR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suqqest for the proposal? 3. Please provide an additional comments below: Thank you for taking the time tYfill out this f5rm. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: t>1AA?> i Lf -4- hi s To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://w .w.mah.gov.on.ca/Pa.ge338.asox Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX.' (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.' 1-866-969-9994 garett. s tevenson@ kitchener. ca 2-173 Garett Stevenson From: Sent: To: Cc: Thursday, July 30, 2015 9:42 AM Garett Stevenson; Scott Davey DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Subject: No to proposed rezoning in Rosemount neighbourhood! Attachments: IMG_20150730_091311 jpg To Garrett (Senior Planner for the City of Kitchener), I have included my city counsellor, Scott Davey, on this response so he is aware of the threat to the Rosemount neighbourhood. Scott, please find official notice sent to residents attached to this email. For the record, I would like to voice my utter disappointment that this notice appeared in my mailbox on July 29th and has a deadline for responses of July 31st. Seriously, 2 days? Given that this is summer holidays and many families are traveling, it is completely unfair, under -handed and dishonest to provide only a 2 -day response period. Regarding the application for a 12 -storey building at the corner of Avon Road and Frederick Street in Kitchener While I generally support high-density housing in urban centers, I DO NOT SUPPORT the construction of a high rise building at this proposed location. In fact, I vehemently oppose it. The Rosemount neighbourhood where this proposed building would be constructed is a very old, very established, quiet neighbourhood that currently has a mix of single family houses, low rise buildings and the occasional medium rise building. This neighbourhood does not have any high rise buildings nor is the neighbourhood built to accommodate them. Avon and Frederick streets at this proposed location are both single lane roads with light/moderate traffic. There are lots of cyclists sharing these limited lanes and lots of young children playing in their vicinity as well. The proposed building would add a minimum of more than 161 new cars competing for these lanes (129 units x 1.25 spots per unit), which is simply preposterous and would inevitably end in a high rate of accidents and congestion, not to mention reduced property values for the surrounding homeowners. Since there is no available space on these roads to twin the lanes, there is no possible way to mitigate this logistical impasse. Beyond the fact that this intersection simply cannot accommodate the proposed increase in volume of traffic, there is also a lack of community amenities to accommodate the proposed increase in volume of residents. There is no playground or park for the children to play in (Rosemount Park is simply an empty field next to the Rosemount School for students with special needs), the bus routes are extremely limited and inconvenient (and very infrequent), and there is no grocery stores in walkable proximity. These are all very fundamental elements to a functional neighbourhood. Rosemount is a highly sought-after neighbourhood. As home owners in Rosemount, we are frequently approached by realtors with buyers desperate to get into the neighbourhood inquiring if we are considering selling our house. The introduction of a high rise building would negatively impact this desirable 2-174 DSD? AppendixE" characterization of the neighbourhood and would change the whole dynamic and feel o the coWunna Asa homeowner in Rosemount, I feel like this is a threat to my community and an attack on the values that lead us and fellow community members to move to this neighbourhood. Scott, as our elected community representative at city hall, l call on you to Help tis fight against this rezoning. This neighbourhood is NOT the right place for a high rise building and this intersection is NOT capable of accommodating the increase in traffic. While I would support low and medium rise buildings at this location, no to high rises in Rosemount! Regards, 63 Burlington Drive 2-175 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" July 26/15 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING Attention: Garett Stevenson, BES, RPP, MCIP Senior Planner City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 RE: Official Plan Amendment OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Dear Mr. Stevenson, My wife, Michelle and I have lived in the affected area since 1990 and we have raised our two children here who still live with us. We have a number of concerns of the proposal brought forward by your letter of July 8, 2015. Item #1 The Proposed building is too high at 12 stories. If you look around at the other apartments in the general vicinity they are only 3 stories high and the single family homes are 2 stories. Going to 12 stories will be totally out of place in this neighbourhood. In my opinion they should be no more than 3 or 4 stories high (yes I know they can legally go 8 stories but just because you can does not mean you should). I don't think anyone wants something that will stand out like a sore thumb in our area. Item #2 Parking will be a problem at 1.25 spaces as opposed to the standard of 1.5 spaces per unit as currently required by the city. As I have found when I have gone to visit friends and family that most of the time there is not enough visitor parking. By cutting down parking by .25, doesn't seem like much, but it sure adds up when you are trying to find a place to park. If this requirement is not changed back to the required 1.5 spaces fear that Avon Road will be come a parking lot for residents and visitors alike. Right now we can park on the road but if this building goes up I am afraid that the city will put up no Page 1 of 5 2-176 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" parking signs on the street upsetting the current long term residents. Right now it is difficult to navigate on Avon Road at certain times when the church is in session or when the Mosque use Avon Road for their over flow traffic. We need to have a parking study done. Item #3 Putting up a structure of this high magnitude will have some dramatic changes to the environment in regards to wind movement and I believe we need to have a study done to see what affects there are going forward. What happens when the snow comes, where does it drift to? Just go to downtown Kitchener, Toronto or Chicago to see what it is like with snow drifts and wind, at time's it's hard to keep your hat on. Item #4 1 believe that we need a traffic study to see what the current use is of Frederick, Manchester, River and Avon. Then a projection of what the traffic will be if this proposal goes through. To me it does not seem right to have traffic entering the apartment complex from Avon Rd. A road that was and is designed for residential use. I see it creating too much traffic on a residential street. I would be afraid to let my kids out on the road with all of that traffic. Problems with residents getting out of their driveways especially the ones that are close to this development. It would make more sense to enter off Frederick Street where there is more room for vehicles being a wider road already. Item #5 You make mention in the letter of July 8/15 of a Special Use Regulation which sounds to me like a commercial service operation which I believe is not permitted in this area. This sounds like a way to get around the requirements for commercial service which I am not in favour of. Item #6 It's not something that we would like to think will happen but inevitably we can be sure that crime will go up in this area. At the Page 2 of 5 2-177 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" moment we have a very low crime rate. But with a large influx of people moving into the area it is bound to happen. Item #7 We need to take into account the natural environment. Just on July 7 our neighbour saw a deer at 7:30 am at Rosemount Park. Over the years that I have been here we have seen deer, fox, squirrels, raccoons, opossums, chipmunks, skunks (not always the greatest joy) and more, plus different kinds of birds more than I can name. It would be terrible to loose this diverse habitat right in the city. Which with this many people moving in I am sure will happen. I then am worried that the city will come along and "develop" the natural park into a park with swings and slides displacing the wild life and removing the trees and having more noise coming from kids playing in that area. Item #8 39 Avon Road Currently zoned R-3 this should stay this way to keep the integrity of the neighbour hood. If anything it should not be change to a zone R- 8 or R-9. If we are going to change this zone I believe that this will be the start to the end of this neighbourhood, as we know it. Why not then change 45 Avon Rd to a different zone and just continue on down the road. Also if you change this zoning and this proposal goes through I will have an eye sore from my backyard looking a giant building and a whole lot of cars. Not something I want to see. A nice backyard view that I have right now is just fine. Item #9 1 am wondering how the snow will be handled in the winter. Is it going to be piled up hence taking away valuable parking spots? Or are we going to have loaders and dump trucks coming to pick up the snow? This of course would then create a lot of noise and wear and tear on the road as well potentially blocking or reducing the access on the road when this work is being done. Page 3 of 5 2-178 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Item #10 A 12 story building is also going to block the sun especially for the people close to the residences. As well this will allow people to see the back yards of those close by which I am not in favour of. This creates in my opinion, privacy issues. Item #11 Property values in the area will also go down because of this development. Will the city lower our taxes to reflect this? Item #12 Right now the properties that the applicant owns does not keep them up to standards and I know bylaw has been called numerous times. Is there any assurances that this will not continue? Item #13 We have lots of people coming and racing up Avon Rd. and Manchester now to take the short cut from Frederick to River via Avon and Manchester and vise versa. With more people living here I see this problem only increasing. How does the city plan on stopping this? Item #14 Mail Boxes With the advent of Canada Post going to community mailboxes, which would before this proposal have created an issue with people, going to get their mail it is now going to be a nightmare with 129 plus mailboxes all the ones they would have had from the people that currently live in the area. Not only is this going to create more problems with people throwing their flyers around that they don't want but you also get people stopping on the road on their way from home from work to get their mail creating major traffic nightmares. To sum up I am not infavour of this development. I don't think 39 Avon Rd. should be rezoned to R-8; it should remain at an R-3. It should stay as a single family home which is just fine and it blends in with the neighbourhood. If anything thing a 3 story apartment Page 4of5 2-179 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" building would be acceptable. As for the other 2 properties they are zoned R-8 and they should not be rezoned for an amendment. In my opinion they could be developed for a multi story use but should be limited to 3 and 4 stories so that the buildings fit in with the other buildings around in the neighbourhood. In this regard there is a property that was built last year at 48 River Road E that was zoned R-8 but was built only 3 stories high so that it fit well into the neighbour hood, so should this project. Kitchener Wilmot Hydro has numerous sub stations around town that look like houses so that they blend in with the surrounding neighbour hood. This is something that should be happening in this situation as well. A good example of this is the property at 325 River Road that was a hydro sub station before that looked like a house, was decommissioned and was made into a house. I am sure most people before did not even know this was a hydro substation. The city has an official plan for a reason so then my question is why do you want to change the official plan? What is the point of an official plan if we are just going to change it to suit someone that wants to do something different? 53 Avon Rd Kitchener ON N213 1T7 cc- Mayor Berry Vrbanovic Councillor Ward 1 Scott Davey Page 5 of 5 2-180 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS C Zone Change Application ZC1 5/01 5/F/GS MFMNIFR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015, _ } 1- What do you like about the proposal? 1 q --_� r_ vi u 2. What Improvements do you simgest fort" eroDosal? Please provide any additional comments below: ------- ,-^ — .v. ''' ,— .11— %M +iu vu1 uii;:F r-411. lu u11iure viat wo receive amy one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: k•i�4 c To learn nziore about the planning process. please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizcrs' Guide to Land Use Planning at httn-,Idww,mah.qov-gfi,Cafpage3 as x Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.• 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-181 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15105IF/GS Zone Change Applicaflon ZC1510151F/GS I�401J-.R Milan Kovacevic and Dears Kav'acevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 59 Axon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please role m (by mail, email or fa)) to the adores,& listed below by July 31,'2015.' 1 What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest forthe proposal? 3. Ple;�seprovide any additionak cornments below: � W� r 'frank you for taking the time o fill out th4i form To ensure that we receive only Wne seL of c7atherpmsonB individual. staff can only ct�nsider comments if they include a name and address Please note tha addresses noted on this form may he used as pate of a public staff report;. however your 'name'and L identifying information will be kept confiKiential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: 11 signatur+s: ,p Address:lgt1_l� r �r li + t r- rs. Vat Email. _xn} a" Data- 'ro lean, more about the planning pro s5, please refer to the Mirslstry of VItinicipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at_ hltp://www.mah,,qov.on.ca/Pgc�e3�$_aspx Pfiease direct all questions, comments and forms to. GareH tevpe-kson City H,311, P,O, aox I I I Kitchener Ontaria, Carrada, Af2G 4G7 PRUNE, {519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2524 TDDlM' 1-856-96949894 garett_ Ste ✓rasnr�r icilrl�! rJt;r: crr 2-182 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" % RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/FIGS I tr.�i> � 1 Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1 What dna you dike abOLIL the proposal `o c� Li ! C on c i`© n 2. What improvements do 0 suggest for the c� t J- 3. Please provide any additional comments �1- , �� �{��,1- q C� N (AkF 17) d 100 - e Ck A r' . I -�V-./Q �__ _ Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: _ Date: C To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDD I T YY: 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-183 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 8:56 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Zone change ZC15/015/F/GS. Plan amendment Hello Mr. Stevenson, I am writing to you regarding the zone change and problems with the amendments in the Rosemount neighbourhood that my family has happily lived in for twenty five years. I would like to know when the properties on Frederick St. were zoned to R-8 and who changed them? No changes need to be made again! The house at 39 Avon Rd. (riot 37 Avon Road ) needs to stay just as it is - a low rise house. I am an asthma sufferer and cannot live near a parking lot. My doctor has said to me that " you are my worst asthma patient". The pollution problem as well as noise would be detrimental on many levels. The wonderful peaceful morning I have been enjoying today up early to see the blue moon will no longer exist if this is allowed. More people means more problems with traffic,garbage and crime. Since the houses have been rented on Avon and Frederick the garbage has been blowing around and is put out at the curb anytime not just on garbage day. Living at 53 Avon Road I am now picking up refuse from my yard on a regular basis. Bylaw has been called along with the region regarding issues of yard maintenance. I can only foresee a much greater problem with more units. If the owner cannot look after what he has and does not regulate who he rents to now, things will only get much worse! Currently we are trying to get the messes at Turner Ave. and 859 & 867 cleaned up now. ' contacted you last week about the problem and we are still waiting to here what is being done about the mountain of debris! I am open to any future thoughts and discussions of all concerns brought forward. Sincerely, 53 Avon Road 2-184 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/FIGS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS K4ZR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. What do you like about the proposal? What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Please provide any additional comments below: P y Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Minis" of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Pa.ge338.as Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX.- (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett. ste venson@kitchener. ca 2-185 RESIDENT COMMENT FORM DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Official Plan Amendment Application OP151051FIGS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/FIGS K;�IC,R Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 S 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please, provide your feedback using this comment form. N required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. What do you like about the proposal? 4 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3. Please provide any additional comments below. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each Individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential In accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: _ Signature; Address: ,% 3 ���` Email: R f' Phone: _ Date:' ti To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: hftiy//www.mah.,qov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to. Garen Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kftchener, Ontario, Canaria, N2G 4G7 PHONE. (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX.(519) 741-2824 TDDiTYY.' 1-866-969-9994 garett.stevenson@kitchener ce 2-186 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS II . I _f Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015, 1 Whnt rin vni i likes nhni it the nrnnnca19 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? s' 16 ' ° Of V)o f► ° - - 3, Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: a To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-187 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Community Services Department Planning Attention: Garett Stevenson City Hall P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road We are grateful that you have taken the time to notify our family of the intent to amend zoning from Low Rise Residential to High Rise Residential in our neighbourhood. However it has created many questions of how this will impact our locality which were not explained in your package. Background Information It has been a stabilizing and peaceful experience to reside at 69 Avon Road, Kitchener for 25 years. Our plan is to reside here is for another 25 years. We purchased this home as newlyweds in order to plant our roots, raise our family and retire in a stable neighbourhood. We are law abiding, tax paying and respectful citizens of the City of Kitchener. As of now, we have been able to provide a safe environment for our family. It has also been inspiring to live in a neighbourhood where people know and care about each other. We have developed some strong bonds with our neighbours as well as welcoming new, young families. We seem to share a pride of ownership and inspiration of living in a safe place. Area Notification Firstly, it is our understanding that only the homes within 120 metres of the proposed sites were mailed a notice of this zoning application. This proposal affects all homes along the radius of River Road, Frederick Street, Applewood Road, Avon Road, Plaza Court, Burlington Avenue, Rosemount Avenue, Elkington Drive, Peachtree Court, Tanglewood Avenue, Monteray Road, Niagara Road, and Manchester Road. We believe in the security of democracy. That is why we are wondering why all of these hard working families did not receive notification as well. Please explain so we may understand. Traffic Secondly, another concern is that traffic flow will be impacted in a negative way. We currently deal with speeders trying to cut through Avon Road from River, Victoria, 2-188 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" and Frederick Streets which endangers our elderly, children, and pets. I imagine that traffic will increase at an alarming rate with 129 extra vehicles in our vicinity. The new 12 storey apartment building does not offer parking space to visitors. How safe will our streets be with an abundance of cars parked on it on a consistent basis? What will happen during winter when the streets are to be vacant of parked cars? How will the traffic on Avon Road look housing a parking lot for residents. Increased traffic will ensue with the proposed commercial businesses on the ground level of the 12 storey structure. How will this increased traffic affect the safety of our bussed students? Environmental Effects Thirdly, how will this 12 storey high rise affect the environment and wildlife of our area? Will the environment be impacted negatively by decreased sun exposure, wind tunnels, loss of wild animal life, pollution? Please provide information in all of these areas. Decreased Property Values Lastly, how will this affect the property values of our homes? The majority of our families have invested greatly in home improvements to increase indoor value as well as aesthetic curb appeal. Personally we have invested much hard earned money to upgrade our 54 year old home. Our home is our legacy to our offspring and theirs. We have greatly invested our blood, sweat and tears to the City of Kitchener in the maintenance of our home. Please advise the impact to us as well as our neighbours. A Great City We appreciate the hard work you do in developing our beautiful city and neighbourhoods. However, can you please, in your heart of hearts, empathize with our situation and decline this amendment to zoning which will change the face of our neighborhood forever. How would you feel if this proposal was in your personal neighbourhood? If this proposal comes to fruition, it may set precedence in your personal neighbourhoods as well. We eagerly await your reply to our queries and thank you for your time. 69 Avon Road Kitchener, ON N213 1T7 CC. Councillor Scott Davey Mayor Berry Vrbanovic 2-189 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" July 20, 2015 Mr. Garett Stevenson Senior Planner City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 RE; Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Dear Mr. Stevenson, I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to you and your fellow planners for the work that you do on our behalf in this great city. I can only imagine that your work is difficult and challenging as you manage all of the diverse dynamics of our multi -cultural, multi -needs city. I applaud your courage in this undertaking. At this time, however, I feel compelled to speak up and express my family's perspective as it pertains to the proposed zone change application ZC15/015/F/GS. To be succinct, let me state at the beginning, I am not in favour of this ill-advised proposal and will do my utmost to support those of us living in this peaceful neighbourhood who stand in opposition to a 12 story, 129 unit, development at the end of a long-term, residential neighbourhood. On July 15, 1985 (thirty years ago this past Wednesday), shortly after my 17th birthday, my parents, , purchased 61 Avon Rd. A couple of weeks later we moved my father's parents, from Williamston, MI to our new home to live with us as a multi -generational family unit. It was a wonderful place to finish out my adolescent years and launch into adulthood. Three years ago, in the summer of 2012, my wife, 'and I, along with our two teenage children, purchased my parents home and have had the joy of them living with us as my grandparents did 30 years ago. We have carefully renovated this 50 -year-old house and invested significantly in our property. I tell you this to give you some context into some of the people who live in this neighbourhood, some for many years. We have been blessed to have a relatively quiet and peaceful place to prosper and raise multi -generational families. I am confident that any member of the Planning Committee or any member of Council, who live in similar enclaves in Kitchener, would be horrified and mortified to come to know that some developer had targeted their peaceful neighbourhood to propose the construction of a 12 story, 35 metre high, 129 unit, high-rise albatross 2-190 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" at the end of their street; a structure that would be completely out of place and character in a low-rise residential neighbourhood. Any clear -minded individuals, tasked with overseeing the welfare or our great city would immediately recognize that those living in the shadow of such an ill-advised proposal would vehemently oppose this notion. Let me assure you that I understand and respect the desires of the Kovacevic family to maximize their profits and increase their influence. The higher they go, the more they will reap the benefits. Unfortunately, and with certainty, those profits and benefits will come at the expense of each and every resident, homeowner or tenant who lives in the Rosemount neighbourhood. No one will be left untouched and there will be no remedy for our hardship or discontent. I also understand and respect that the city would see this development as a windfall in one-time development fees and an increased tax base. There is great incentive to consider the bottom line in these financially difficult times for municipalities and little incentive to consider the individuals, the actual people and families, living in this neighbourhood. I have regard for the difficult decisions that you must make. I am aware of a number of letters of opposition that have already been, or will be submitted on this matter, I support their positions and will not take time to detail my own corroborating points in this communication. I will, however, be prepared and will encourage my neighbours to be prepared to speak at the appropriate time to the myriad of issues that we have considered. It is my hope and expectation that all of the residents of Rosemount will be given opportunity to voice our concerns and be given fair and reasonable notice to do so. It is with a great deal of respect and hope that I appeal to you and whoever else needs to hear this message. Please, do not give this proposal any opportunity to come to fruition. The wellbeing of all of the families living in the Rosemount development depend on you, and those in positions of power, to deny this request at the earliest possible occasion. Respectfully, Home Owners and residents in the Rosemount Neighbourhood 61 Avon Rd, Kitchener, ON N213 1T7 CC: Councillor Scott Davey, Ward 1 Mayor Berry Vrbanovic 2-191 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? NOTHING 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? NO to the rezone application 3. Please provide any additional comments below: See attached emails to our ward councillor and mayor Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: (signed as such) Address: 106 Avon Road Email: Phone:: Date: 26 July 2015 To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P. O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 2-192 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" The following email was sent to Mayor Vrbanovic today: Hello: It's been along time since we've conversed. I just knew when you said you wanted to leave the IT Dept and pursue politics, that you would do well. Congrats Berry! When you and I worked at the IT Dept and Dom was in your chair, I was a fairly new arrival back to my hometown. After having served twenty years in the army, we were looking for that one, perfect, singular location to plant roots and stay forevermore. We really looked forward to putting those roving days behind us, as we were uprooted every couple of years while serving Canada. We chose to purchase and live at 106 Avon Road for several reasons. At the top of the list was its idyllic locale. You couldn't find a more serene and mature neighbourhood in Kitchener. It now appears that this could all change drastically for the worse - if you and others don't act to suppress a proposed zoning change at the corner of Avon Road and Frederick Street. Word of mouth has quickly spread regarding the proposed behemoth building. Just as there are too many reasons to list why we chose to live on Avon Road more than twenty years ago, there are too many reasons to list why erecting this monstrosity is just plain wrong. The singular reason for this even being considered is greed, pure and simple. That is never a sound motivation whenever it impacts people's lives. 1 know you can envision the consequences if you allow it to proceed. I could go on for several pages and not say the same thing twice. Let them take their greed to another Kitchener location where high rise buildings are part of the landscape and the life. I understand that and his son have submitted letters which highlight some of the reasons why this cannot be allowed to happen. You were copied on both of these letters. If you haven't yet read the letters you really should. They are quite sincere and heartfelt. I also want to mention the flaws in the current system of full disclosure. If it weren't for the knocking on our door, we would never have known of the proposed abomination. Apparently only a scant half a dozen homes or so were notified. This could negatively affect everyone west of River Road, between Frederick and Manchester. Such a wide -spread affect requires that everyone should be appraised within this boundary, but that didn't happen because of flawed processes I surmise. It's almost like it's being snuck in under the rug (just as 31 and 34 Avon Road were done BTW). Further, the City's web page 'News'regarding land use planning makes no mention of it. Is this an oversight, or does it imply that staff are certain it's a done deal? All of this is just wrong. Help all of the residents here. You can make a positive difference Berry. Have this squashed and you'll receive the gratitude of us all for years to come. Sincerely, 106 Avon Road Kitchener, ON 2-193 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:54 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Re: proposed 12 storey building in our neighborhood Importance: High Dear Mr Stevenson We are' Our home is located at 139 Avon Road, a corner lot at Avon and Manchester. A couple of our neighbors have informed us of the planned apartment building that will tower over many of our back yards. We are NOT in favor of this. Our properties will lose significant value. Also, if that building is allowed, our backyards will see nothing but shade from noon onward. Many of us have gardens with vegetables and herbs growing in our yards. We do not want to see that stop. We will most definitely attend the public meeting. My question is, why build in this specific spot? Why not where the empty field is nearby? Building there would not hurt anyone, residential or commercial. Thank you. 2-194 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 8:48 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Application for a 12 storey building at Avon Road and Frederick Street Hello, please find my comments regarding this proposal below 1. What do you like about the proposal? It's a good thing to increase housing within the current city limits but this proposed apartment building is a concern with regards to the traffic it will introduce into our neighbourhood. Already Avon Road is used as a short-cut from Victoria street to River Road via Frederick Street. This new building will likely increase the traffic volume on our street (Avon Road). The number of parking spaces is also a concern, is 1.25 spaces per unit enough? I might think that 2 spaces per unit would be more suitable. Increased parking on Avon Road will be a concern, but I suppose parking restrictions could be put in place. I also wonder about property values in the neighbourhood, will they be negatively affected by the apartment building? 2. Suggested improvement might be an increase in the parking allotment above the 1.25 spaces per unit. Also, ample visitor parking would be preferred. 3. Just a bit concerned in general about the increase in residential density in our neighbourhood. We certainly enjoy the current quiet and peaceful environment and worry about how that many more residents will change our neighbourhood, Thanks for your consideration. 111 Avon Road Kitchener ON N2131T9 2-195 REGMENT COMMENT FORM Oficial Plan Amendment Application QF111 SM 51FIGS Zone Change Application zC'l'SJaisi=mS Milan Kovar*vfo aind Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Fsedefick Street and 39 Avon Road DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Please provide your feedback using this ccmment four. If required, pleaso attach add'ffroraa? pages to Mis forte. pease return (by rnad ernerf or fax) fo Etta address & Now by July 31, 2011 1. What do you liRe about the proposal? �rf.'IGfuevn�1 �rvymrwe3ewlr- h�lruar� Thank you for taking tho time to till out this form. Ta 6iisure thoat we fecalive cmly one of of Grmmards frm each Individual, staff can only consider comments if they Include a rrame and address. Please mate that all co rnrme€Lts and addressw rnDtebd ran This farm may be useb as part of a p4blic staff mpom however your name and any other personal Iden fyfng information will be kept coarrtiderrtial In a=rdanca With Freedom of Information regulationa- x � dre;3s:t'c tet) t !Email: Phone, �. Date" - AL,.x LS To loom more about the pkv rrnhg pmcoss, please Fater Who Minis" of Municipal Atfalts and Housing's publlcaflon Ciftens' Guide to Lanai Use Planning at: IattralJti��Lv.rarah.gov.o 1.e�d�'ao;e333,e Lrax Please direct allquestions, cornments and h3rm6 tri: Gareft St&vanscin t:T HW), R 0. Box i f I8 KJtchenar' [Oland, Canadar N2G 4G7 PHONE= (519) 741-2200 x 7070 PAX- (i5199 741-2624 624 TDDkM. 1-866-969-9994 g8r9ft rvenson ki1chatier.ca 2-196 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 3:15 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Re zoning 859 and 868 Frederick Street Mr Stevenson, My name is i and I live at 140 Avon Road in Kitchener. I have owned my house for close to 20 years. I am writing about the application to re zone the addresses listed above so that a large apartment complex can be built. For the record, I am opposed to the change being requested. I have a number of questions for you. 1) 1 left on holiday on July 6 and returned yesterday. When I left town, I had no idea that this change was being proposed. Now I have two days to formulate and communicate my concerns. Is this the standard procedure for announcing zone change applications? Is announcing it in July when many people are away accidental? 2) As you know, the Rosemount neighborhood is zoned for many different land uses. We have apartment blocks, large and small. We have side by side homes. We have single family dwellings. I bought my house knowing how the neighborhood had been planned and developed. This proposal is a huge deviation from that plan. Why is it necessary? 3) What impact will the increased density that this proposal will bring to the Rosemount neighborhood mean for traffic on Avon Road and Manchester Boulevard? 4) What will it mean for the property values of our homes? 5) Where will children living in this proposed block go to school? School access has been a problem for this neighborhood for the past 20 years. 6) When will there be public hearings on this issue? 1 look forward to hearing back from you. Thank you for your time. 140 Avon Road Kitchener, On N2B1V1 2-197 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" From: Subject: Zone change application Date: July 12, 2015 4:49:31 PM EDT To: Garett Stevenson C -'c: Scott. davey@kitchener.ca Comments: 1. We're concerned about traffic. Last year we contacted the city for traffic calming speed bumps only to be told we'd be at the end of a long list & to forget it. We can only imagine what that building would do to the already law -breaking speeders who discovered Avon Rd. 2. Undoubtedly it will lower our property values (cutting our city tax bill) if that hasn't already happened now that the signs are up. 3. Our street is already a mess from residents of 2 triplexes who put their garbage out long before garbage day so we end up picking up the debris blown around by the wind. How much more would we get from that proposed building owned by the same person who doesn't care about taking care of things. Dumpsters - that's a laugh! Some people are too sloppy to take the time to use them. 4. Some neighbours received mail notification about this plan. We will certainly be affected by it & are insulted to be omitted as our taxes are paid in full. Some people are not at home & are unaware of what's happening so you won't even be getting their opinions. Not that they don't care - they don't know. 5. Make sure the developer is legally bound to reimburse each property owner for their loss in property value as a result of this proposal. The loss has already taken place now that the signs are up. LJ 2-198 DSD -20-00f II RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GSA Zone Change Application ZC15/015/FIGS CV0UtAk1-'1,� 4 Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you Bike about the proposal? F tea is 1 + .�. _ L h 1 {is if A . fi.0 h/`a//,, 2, What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? j Ulei d It A�C j.����/' rct'0Zi�C' Cry+. 3. Please provide any additional comments below: o L' Roo C IUB / Al db tie $ 1 .a rt G' Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and .address. Please note that all comments and /',% .:Ll addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name.- ame:Signature: Signature: s Address: ' 1.5 v Z � ,v i Email: Phone: Date: J L.;I- To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www,mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.• 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-199 July 20, 2015 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING Attention: Garett Stevenson, BES, RPP, MCIP Senior Planner City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 RE: Official Plan Amendment OP 15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC 15/015/F/GS Dear Mr. Stevenson, DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" 'JUL 2 3�t.i�:`•11�11i`J.r,.' �i"•.Ji.l�3i•d It has been the delight of our family to live at 61 Avon Road, Kitchener for the past 30 years, 17 of those years as a three -generation family. We have now learned that the peace of this Rosemount neighborhood is being threatened by an application for a zone change for properties at 859 and 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road -- just two houses away from our home -- from Low Rise Residential to High Rise Residential. We further note that it is the intention of the applicant to build a 12 story apartment building containing 129 units on the adjoining property. Concern #1-- Intensification. While we are in favor of high density residential living in the city core, we believe that it is highly inappropriate to impose such a massive structure and resultant huge influx of residents on a mature residential, and for the most part single -dwelling, neighborhood. Concern #2 — Traffic Flow. If this project becomes reality, traffic flow will be greatly increased. Already it is difficult, especially during rush hours, to access Frederick Street from Avon Road without a long wait. To add another 150 or more cars to this corner, whose entrance and exit is presently projected to be off Avon Road, will mean long line- ups waiting to enter Frederick, which could necessitate installing a traffic signal light there. Concern #3 -- Parking. The applicant is requesting only 1.25 parking spaces be created for each of the 129 units, instead of the normal 1.5. Further, there is no provision for visitor parking. This means that Avon Road will become a permanent parking lot. Presently there are times when it is difficult to navigate Avon to and from the corner of Frederick because of strings of cars parked on either side of Avon Road. This especially happens when the church directly across the street from the proposed parking lot is in session, or each Friday when there is weekly overflow parking from the nearby mosque. At such times, two-way traffic must very slowly squeeze by each other. This will be exacerbated when snow piles up. 2-200 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Concern #4 — Special Use Regulation. Giving permission to establish businesses in the proposed project will mean further traffic complications. Concern #5 — Increased Noise. Adding significant traffic congestion will also increase noise pollution in this neighborhood that has enjoyed a spirit of tranquility, which is a significant reason for why we and our neighbors have chosen to live here. Concern #6 — Decreased Property Values. If this project is imposed on this neighborhood, it is inevitable that property values will drop in the area because a quality of life is being negatively affected. We fully appreciate the challenges that you deal with daily, and are most grateful for your willingness to listen to us as concerned citizens. Please share these observations with all interested parties. Very sincerely yours, 61 Avon Road Kitchener, ON N2B 1 T7 cc. Councillor Scott Davey Mayor Berry Vrbanovic 2-201 S'C /)T 'tel (,ry yd -Cd 1 13 DSD -20-002 Appy RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS JUL C! 0 - Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic t OMMUN!7w SEf,v;GES DEPT. 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. What do you like about the proposal? 2 What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Please provide any additional comments below: P? i Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature:',y. Address: Email: Phone: Date: i To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.' 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca M WE 2-202 U/—L;j— 10 U0:00 rKUIYI— Uf1J �)Iy—/44-2�yU RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Appllcatlon OP15105/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/095/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road 1-14!D F'UUU I /UUUI r -'L l I DSD -20-002 Appendix' I 8� ,„ 1 II i� F X11 PT, P9 ANMNC, Li i�l�Jt�h: Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? 9 What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3 Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments fromieach individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: ...... _ Address: o La. Email: Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www. mah,gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to, Garen Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE, (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 TDDI TYY: 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-203 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" AECEIVE RESIDENT COMMENT FORM��� L��J Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS iF>VF Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic COMMUNITY wIERVICES DEPT. 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. What do you like about the nronosal? 2_ What improvements do you suggest for the prop sal? f 3. Please provide any additional comments below: A, Z�/ 61 Pc a u.s .� ! >� `fU�`�G� t i c , - Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name Signature: Address: Email: Phone: _ Date: fy l To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.gov,on.ca/Pa.ge338.as-px Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.• 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-204 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RECEIVED RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan AmendmentL" '1; Application OP15/05/F/GS JUL���. Jo .- I_� Zone Change Application ZC151015/FIGS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic C%)P,INIUNITY SE„V±CES raw-,Pj-. 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road 13L ,°� • r,, 2; L' i L'i ;rsiv Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? 3. Please provIdo any addltl'onsl cornments below. } Ili a c j_ c 4 {7 # 5 1 C'(c7 l y ` 5" ° r 5C'3 1 Ky U �� 4 i :"_` 't 6 l . r � , 1 V_ 1Z eta M. t- Ji ° C 4'L t.'f Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address y , ? �y �6i Email: Phone: Date: : r To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah-gov.oii.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE., (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett.stevenson@kitchener. ca 1-P_ 2-205 30 July 2015 Community Services Department, Planning Attention: Mr. Garett Stevenson, City Hall, 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 RB: Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/01.5/F/GS Dear Mr. Stevenson, DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" IECEIVE JUL I am writing to you to officially comment on the applications above by Mr. Milan Kovacevic and Mr. Dean Kovacevic. 1) The proposed apartment complex is clearly far too high for this residential neighbourhood, because of the problems that will be created. Below, we have itemized some of our concerns. 2) I understand that a Special Regulation has also been proposed for this site - to allow reduced parking rate of 1.25 spaces per unit This also is not acceptable. Currently, street parking on Avon Road can be very congested at times. During certain holiday periods, the Masjid on Victoria Street completely fills the lower part of Avon Road with cars. The Nazarene Church also on Avon Road does the same on most Sundays. I would suggest that if this part of the Special Regulation is allowed, then Avon Road would be far too busy. 3) In the diagrams provided, I noticed that the proposed apartment building and outside parking will have access to Avon Road. This is also not acceptable. Avon Road is currently busy in the mornings - I think it would be very difficult for the street to accommodate the additional traffic generated from this building. 4) I have had to personally speak with Mr. Kovacevic (senior) a few times regarding the condition of his current properties. I understand that they bought the properties on Avon Road and Frederick Street for the purpose of tearing them down, but this is no excuse to have overgrown hedges, uncut lawns and garbage littering the front yards. As I write this, I can see an unlicensed vehicle in the driveway at 37 Avon - in violation of By -Law 2007-138, I believe. The vehicle has been parked there for some time. Is Mr. Kovacevic unaware of this situation or does he not care? I hate to think of the problems the neighbourhood will have if this large apartment building is to proceed. In summary, I strenuously oppose both applications. Any apartment building at this site should be limited to the current zoning regulations. I also object to changing the property at 37 Avon to any other classification. It should stay as a Low Rise Residential property. Page 1 of 2 2-206 Yours Truly, 46 Avon Road, Kitchener ON N2B 1T6 III:h1011"0ky/01 OU CC: Mayor Berry Vrbanovic CC: Ward 1 Councillor Scott Davey 46 Avon Road, Kitchener ON N2B 1T6 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Page 2 of 2 2-207 DSD -20-002 Appe G, ,EiVEr) JUL 23 2015 GC)MMUtqj-rt SERVICES OEP-( .2- /`Puff evi sION, U e S e47 4 U lot). LL) t, v e It v -e C4 /,-i 0L-�r7 ,/ &m e G ae--f- 4 Jet, d- c c-, /A lon 7 1 1 0 40P e do""r) r 6L,, 'r O -P 0 TA 6 t 1d LOe---)/kuI It �o/ � � ' - 208 d,oe s S e�e rn S •e d t v I cwt U eJ C c) m�e ell 00 c e cc,T-e L GL�i7l i1 � [/� �C✓ f / 1 l./ i.� 41 �.1%n L �.+� � L/ � � / CAL-) C) Jet, d- c c-, /A lon 7 1 1 0 40P e do""r) r 6L,, 'r O -P 0 TA 6 t 1d LOe---)/kuI It �o/ � � ' - 208 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" L) vred et 196o� JJ I t dcoh 4h o .CC- ga r t � ss /N 2 ccl>ln C-e)lA led . � . w e, cJ-e je>411�5 -fpo",7 s des o -jL F 7-6 /J /L/L.- , v ,� A), /3 / T;7 2-209 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:04 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Regarding Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change Applications (OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS) Dear Garett Stevenson, Our names are . We moved to 6 Applewood Ave in June of 2013 and have been working hard during this two year period to make our house, at the corner of Avon and Applewood, our home. In the time that we have lived in this area, we have met many of our neighbors, from those just starting out like ourselves to those who have lived in the neighbourhood since it was first built. The choice to move into this neighbourhood was driven by many factors, but as a new couple in our first home with a strong interest in improving our investment, a major factor was the upward potential in this unique area of Kitchener. This location provides easy access to both Highway 7 to Guelph and Highway 85, which tends to attract commuter families who travel throughout the Kitchener -Waterloo region and beyond. The established subdivision in which we live offers natural beauty including large lots with mature trees, park spaces, sidewalks on both sides for increased walkability, and the homes avoid the "cookie -cutter" feel of so many of the newer subdivisions in town. While we urxderstand the need for it glter density living as the population of Kitchener grows, we firmly believe there are more appropriate places for a 12 storey, 12 unit property than in a neighbourhood such as ours that has no preexisting, high rise zoning and little in the way of medium rise buildings. The negative effect on property values as a direct result of high rise development represents an unacceptable deiriment to those that have Ii%,c;d in this area for inarty years and depend on their property value as one of the foundations of many Canadians" retircment plans. For newer home investors such as ourselves, allowing such development in this area represents a risk that dere property volu4 here will be capped., severely lirn.iting investment potential, We have received multiple compliments on the rnariy improvements that we have made to both the exterior and interior of our home, which total more than a $25,000 investment in only 2 years. Our intention has been to continue to improve our property with further investment, but these plans have been halted in light of the proposed amendment to the zoning in our area. Aside from the fact that a 12 storey building would seem misplaced on the outskirts of Kitchener in one of the last residential areas within city limits, far from the downtown core wltere high rise development is commonplace, there is a strung set of criteria why we feel that this proposed development would be a mistake in our area. In particular, the proposed reduced parking allotment per unit would exacerbate an already existing parking issue along Avoir road that is partially caused by the existing rnediurn rise; buildings on Avon between Frederick and Appimood and is particularly notable during frequent events at the church that is located across the street from the property that is proposcd to be rey-oned. Not only would the pinking rate sought after in this amendment cause issues with traffic flaw due to increased prevalence of street parking, but Roth thu residential and commercial units in the building would inerca3ethe volume of traffic at the comer of Frederick and Avon, which can already lt. a difficult intersection at times. As mentioned above. the: ideal Location of this neighbourhood with respect to Ideal hil liways has, and will continue to, attract those who drive for their commute to and from work. Although the city of Kitchener is attempting to discourage a "car -culture'°, reducing available parking spaces is an inappropriate and misguided move in this area, due to the inherent value for commuters. if part of the intention of this reduced parking rate is to attract those who commute through alternate methods it again seems that this building wc+uld be better situated closer to the downtown core where superior access is avai table to these a]ternate options; particularly: multiple transit hubs, bike; lanes, and walking dista,rtce proxiill lt to a variety of employme nt options. These three features are al I limited within our area, further promoting tlke commuter family lifestyle, While we appreciate that the land owner wishes to maximize their investment potential by increasing the number of units that can legally be created in the given space, we ask that the interests of the rest of the nearby community not be forgotten by the City of Kitchener as it considers this proposal. After many discussions with local residents, we know we are not alone in our concerns about this proposal. In fact, we have not met with a single neighbour that has not been vehemently opposed to the proposed high rise development as a result of their own list of considerations: some shared with us and some unique to their own situation. 2-210 Thank you for considering our comments and thank you in advance for providing the unpublishA detaf sof th�efiuture public meeting regarding this matter. Regards, 2-211 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" f RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal? do nom 1;ke �� �^ aboL> 's Qjrc, dS 2. What inn 3_ Please) k- & u+ N ivements do you suggest for the proposal? - d` + id -.-x v dd L, ri Von de an ad itional comments below: W Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each Individual, staff can only conslder comments If they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report, however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://v..u� 4y,_,inah.gov.on.ca/Page338 asl x Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX, (519) 741-2624 TDDI TYY: 1-866-969-9994 garett.stevenson@ikitchener. ca 2-212 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/06fFIGS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/FIGS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1. What do you like about the proposal?/ 2 What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Q Of--- -. i to onv nArti+innol rnmmantc hpInW' Thank you for taking the time to fill out t'iiis form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: tJo © C1 ' 4 Email: Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: htt6://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall; P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE. (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX.- (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY..- 1-866-969-9994 garett. ste venson@kitchener. ca 2-213 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Application OP15/05/F/GS I have several issues with this plan. There is no benefit to this neighbourhood, parking issues, the commercial plans are not businesses that are needed in this area, the building is too tall for this area, and it will take a nice quiet mature neighbourhood and take away all that is desirable in this area. I believe that it is very important to take into consideration the area that proposed changes are to be implemented. There needs to be a need and benefit for those changes, not just that there is space for someone to develop and make money. The proposal neither fills a need nor does it benefit this neighbourhood. This doesn't make any kind of sense. The parking that is suggested is not reasonable. There would not be sufficient parking to prevent the need to park on the street. Avon is a busy through street with a church right across from the proposed site. As it is there is the need for overflow parking from the church to park on the street. This isn't a problem as it is only one day a week and we can live with that. I can't imagine the difficulties that would arise if it were to be everyday especially with the intersection of Avon/Frederick and the traffic coming around the corner from Victoria. A solution would be to put no parking signs up but that isn't reasonable both because the church does need the street parking and in this neighbourhood parking on the street is part of what makes it a nice place to live and have company over. The proposal is not right for this neighbourhood. There are daycares, animal grooming, personal services, financial establishments, printing and business offices, and retail all within a 4 block radius of this area already. There is no benefit to suggest that this is the area to add these businesses. In addition this is a quiet residential area with easy access to all businesses already. It is a poor idea to try and put more right inside our neighbourhood. The height of the building proposed is ridiculous. There are no buildings within a large area around that are even close to that height, not even on Victoria Street. It would destroy the privacy of neighbour's yards in the whole area. The height is a major issue for this neighbourhood. It would be about the same height as the hospital. By changing the zoning you then open up the area for more buildings of that height increasing the problems and making our quiet neighbourhood into a high density area. I can see no valid reason for a building of that height, even at 6 stories it would be a problem. Please do not allow this proposal. Finally and most importantly this is a very desirable neighbourhood to live in because it is quiet, mature, with large lots and little traffic. The people who live here have chosen this area for those reasons. We are mostly middleclass (and some low income) citizens who have worked hard to put equity into our homes. It isn't right for the city to change the zoning and take away the value of our properties and neighbourhood just so that someone can make money. The homes directly besides this proposed building would lose all the benefits of this neighbourhood and would be most affected financially if they ever chose to move. Again I will say that it isn't right to take what the average citizen has worked so hard for away, simply because someone wants to make more money. 2-214 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Please reconsider this proposal very carefully. Just because there is space doesn't mean it should be used in this way. There is no benefit to our neighbourhood and a lot of negative impact. I do need to say that I am concerned with how little notice we have been given and have to wonder why the city is allowing this to be rushed through. There are plenty of areas that are being newly developed where a building of this size would be perfect. There is no need to change zoning in small neighbourhood communities and allow this type of building in an area that cannot benefit and residents who object so strongly. My question would be "Why is this being considered?" If you make a list of pros and cons, I can see nothing on the 'pro' side except to make money. I sincerely hope that this proposal is denied. Thank you, 20 Applewood Ave -main floor 2-215 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/06iF/GS Zone Change Application ZC1610161FIGS ISI"fi-»r` Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment fort. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Plr:r.,m., return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. I What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? iA W's ,�TD50t, 3. Please provide any additional comments below.- Thank elow: Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: 20 Email: a , Ur - Phone: Date:— i To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: htti):/lwww.mah.Qov.on.ca/Page338.asp!: Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE. (519) 741-2200x 7070 FAX. (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.• 1-666-969-9994 garett.stevenson@kitchenerca 2-216 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Garett Stevenson: Regarding Official plan amendmentapplication OP15/05/F/GS Zone changeapplicationZZC I 5/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 &867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road. This proposal of allowing a twelve story apartment building and commercial spaces in this neighbourhood deeply disturbs me. We bought a house in this neighbourhood because of the zoning for single family residences... NOT HIGMUSE BUILDINGS! This area is full of well kept homes that people are proud of. The infiltration of apartment buildings will destroy the neighbourhood. The added traffic, noise and congestion (and crime / vandalism that will accompany it) on the streets of our area is most unwanted. This will surely result in a loss of pride and value in our properties. The properties that the developer now has, have been allowed to get run down already. What does that tell you about the future? Will that suddenly change? Unlikely wouldn't you say? I, like most of the other home owners, will use all available avenues to stop this hideous proposal. We are considering collectively hiring a lawyer to assist us in fighting it. As it will result in decreased property values I am willing to spend money on legal fees to protect my property value. In summation I sincerely hope this zoning change does NOT get approved! Regards 29 Applewood Ave Kitchener, Ontario N2BIV9 2-217 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" July 29, 2015 Official Plan Amendment Application OP 15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC 15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Dear Mr. Stevenson I don't like the proposal to put a 12 storey building at the corner of Avon Road and Frederick Street. When we moved into the neighbourhood there weren't any high rise apartment buildings nearby, only single family dwellings and a quiet place to live. A building of this size and type with some commercial property would increase the traffic dramatically and change our peaceful neighbourhood. If the zoning is opened up then this creates the potential for other properties of this size in the neighbourhood. I like Kitchener and not another Toronto. There are a lot of seniors in the area and I'm concerned about safety. There will be a higher volume of traffic and possible vandalism with a lot more people moving here. Also will the buildings be well maintained or will they be managed by an absentee landlord? I'm worried that the proposed building will detract from the appearance and value of the neighbourhood. I'm against the construction of any high rise building in this area. Yours sincerely, 29 Applewood Ave. Kitchener, Ontario N2B 1V9 2-218 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC1 5/01 5/F/GS KfffftSfhR Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 80 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. '. What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? doh 3. Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: _ f Email: Phone: Date: To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's pubileatian Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: htti)://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Pa.ge338.aspx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Ha II; P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY.- 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-219 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" ADDENDUM TO RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Kitchener, ON What do you like about the proposal? Nothing What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Do not change the zoning. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Do not change the zoning - The retail component is not wanted. Some of the business uses listed will probably be establishments that will operate after normal hours, e.g. all-night coffee shop and convenience store, massage parlour, etc. The neighbourhood can expect noise, traffic, poor garbage collection, and knowing the owner's poor reputation for keeping his houses and apartments in good condition, these businesses will rapidly turn the building and surrounding area into a slum. The neighbours will be left to deal with any problems, because the owner will not be interested in policing the building, as he has for the past years with the houses he already owns. The area already has most of the businesses listed available within a short distance on Victoria Street North. There are 3 convenience stores within walking distance of the proposed site. There are enough empty retail spaces in Kitchener without building more. - The entrances and exits are shown on Avon Road, which is a narrow street that is the main entrance/exit to Frederick Street. Most people in the subdivision use Avon Road Frederick entrance instead of the Manchester exit, as it is too difficult to exit onto River Road because of the large volume of traffic on River Road. A big building on Frederick/Avon will exacerbate the traffic problem of getting out onto Frederick Street. Avon Road already is problematic because people use the street as a short-cut from River Road (Manchester, Avon, Frederick) and have to manoeuvre around the parked cars on Avon. People using the short-cut do not obey the speed limits on the short-cut. 2-220 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" The proposed special regulation provision regarding parking will not provide enough parking on site. Tenants and visitors will be using Avon Road and the adjacent streets to park their cars. The church on Avon Road already fills up the adjacent streets every Sunday. - The building is too high for this area. This building will encroach on the neighbours' rights to sunlight and privacy. This proposed building should be the same height as other buildings in the area. Additional Comments: I'm objecting to the very short time frame we have to send in our comments. There are many people away in July, and the 2-3 weeks the neighbours will have to complete the survey is too short. We do not have any time to have a neighbourhood meeting, and to contact those who are away and should know about this proposal. Because this section of Old Rosemount is self-contained, the whole neighbourhood should have been notified earlier, as this building will affect all the residents in the area. As a long-time resident of the area, we have watched the properties at 859 and 867 Frederick Street go downhill for many years. The owner clearly turned the properties into a slum, and also built two small buildings on Avon that have not been kept up either. I am afraid that his new proposal, probably based on his assertion that the area in question needs to be improved, after he let it go downhill, will turn into a vertical slum. 25 Applewood Avenue Kitchener, On July 20, 2015 2-221 DSD -20-002 Appendix RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OPTS/051F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/01S/F/GS � t* --i:. R Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. if required, : please attach additional pages to this form. Please' return (by mail, email or faX) to the address listed below by July 39,_2013. 1. What do you like about the proposal? L Whatimprovements do you suggest forthe proposal? /V6 r 1) .1 />! 4 t V11d dr<"'.1%i�('6�.. C S fV'Z'%S t,"f.J-7 N 0 494" 3" Please provide any additional comments below: TIhank you for taIw3g the time to fill out lhis firm To ensure that wa MceiOe only arra sat of rmmenis from each mdWiduai,,staff rmn only mneider eomrnanis Ii shay +nelude a name and address Please nota that all cpmmentSq and addressee noted on this form may be used as part of a pub5o staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept cdntidentW in ac amdanca with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: �� r Signature; Address; /n r- A i -- Email Phoney Date: f %' To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at. http:/lwww.mah.aov.on.calPage338.as2x Please direct all questions, comments and forms to; Garett Stevenson Cr?y lWaN P.O. Elm, 1918 Kitcfreeaer, ontwhi, Canada, N2G 4G7 PKOW 05'161 T41 -220x 7070 FAX (519) 741-204 TDDITYY. 1-866-969-9994 gareft:stevenson@, kitchener.ca 2-222 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ,ZC15/015/F/GS �ITCTE Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015, I- What do you like about the proposal? 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? 3. Please provide any additional comments below: Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments" ro RE5'G individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address.. Please note that all comments an addresses noted on this form may used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kebt rnnfiriantiai in arnnrriance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: ¢/ Email: Phone: Date: J11V To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mahaov.on,ca/Pa-ge338.aslpx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY., 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-223 DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" RESIDENT C&3115 WmT FOFM Official Plan Amen aiiilent. Application opI510 _IGS Zone Change Application ZC951oI&FIGS ITCH NE Milan Kovacevic and Dean KOvacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon toad Pleasp'provide your feedback using this comment form, If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. 1 • What do you like about the proposal? o { /l� C=, 2. What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? Ai 3- Please provide any additional comments below: AZ 17,�,ar� _ �r��� ij 2- 57oi21!�L? ARd2-r�('We� as oEA46[�Y- ,t i '.-', fld�7`r�r~r S74re-1r /-, IPct. rf�r wil.( r t�e1C AU51v S- c.�f; ev o�Ls, -TkJr,f { (ZM,d worn---a_Kr C, e- o -P (4?46—' b64 1.ld r vtcr Thank you for taking the time to till out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report, however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of information regulations. } Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date,. To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of 'Municipal Affairs *d Housing's publication Citizens' Guideto Land Use Planning at: http://www mah, ov.on.ealPage338.asnx JJ Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall P. 0- Box 1.118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2240 x 7070 FAX: (519) 741-2624 TDOiTYY.1-066-969-9994 garett stevenson@kiichener. ca re - w c (I 6 >° pa-r�-k I t17 Pr`o'A � -e- VO -11 -- (A-() 'F dowvi r/IC)ovl °h r�t�rYDt�vlr�cl2 sfir�eT!: c 5 owner-- Shol'td Ct.SK;�+� �.or a�fc�vcc�viG�..�V, (aci.rKti�✓��r CC>''YI/Onr-'A-r zJon t G�ntc�Cvt �-���5 w-1 Wu IL fiu rN �+�to he y -vu 15� e. alf_niy� co+�ee Sko i or ue5trov�a hl iLgts2E'.55�r� SUc 2 - 2 24 RESIDENT COMMEHT FORM 0mciel Pjan Amendment Application OF151051Ft S Zone Change Application ZC16101WFIGS Milan Kovacevir< and Deart Kovacevlc 8s3 & 867 =redafick Street and 39 A40n Read DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" Please provide your feedback uslag this c0rorgr7t four,. If Fequked, 0ee8e atte0h edalrti(1r]af pag" too- tllr's form, Please returrx (by rr?e+F; a rmaaj or, tax.) to the cadress Hated below J5y July 49.2045, wliat do you like about the praposa 17 clo you suggest lot the proposal? wl1a nk you for taking the irne tO pis mentssi# otEoey i oc4uriEue nQrne anij addressn1Pl6a a nye#thy all r omrn n ar individual. sant pan only Teport', however your norne and :sddr�sses nested on thii 11 tie keit cnn#idform m8y bo e el n cnordence with led a$ part of a'public staff eedm of In#orma',i l `egu ations any of er p2rsn� idC:r,%rIng irftrmallc� NRM6: .. Phone: Matte; o the MinjszEq of Municipal Affl airs and Housing's publican 7o Warn mDre about th€ punning process, AP,ease lrefer Citizens" Guide to Land LIse Planning at; htlo�:If+x�r�_#n d. ov-ren-cWpa e338.a5 x le se d rnd e11 ques rvrrs, CoMments and lrarM$ to. a3ro t slevenson City Na}A P. D. Box 1';18 Kitctaerrer, C.Irrder+or Car)ada, N2G 4C7 PHONE' (5 19) 741-900 x 7070 Fla, p1gj 74�-2624 TDr)) TY`y.- 1-666-969-RO94 �arett, ste�snson�fcJ#c;taener. ca 2-225 1) DSD -20-002 Appendix "E" 1H 61 JVEIIl RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS JUL /,, Zone Change Application ZC15/015/FIGS KI TCi ]I i�'F:9--i Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic COMMiUNiTY SE MFS DEPT. 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road P!-A!?NSI NC3 ,1 V !G)i0iN Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach additional pages to this form. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015, What improvements do you suggest for the proposal? _1'r;1 _rD 54 0 '--r;vb„ e" rC � e1-1 ► 11c c� �a ��PL ftot i -Torr We ric R � Mt 3. ease provide any additional commen s bel: V �Se ��ti^� , z J'r` n r 60 x 0oir da rs POO-stev\ ct►^<�i 0 Pan h S+ S Lar. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensufe that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments and addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name and any other personal identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information regulations. Name: Signature: Address: Email: Phone: Date: L _115 - To learn more about the planning process, plt�ase refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's publication Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: h!t2://www.mah.,qov,on.ca/Paae338.assDx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4G7 PHONE: (519) 741-2200 x 7070 FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY., 1-866-969-9994 garett. stevenson@kitchener. ca 2-226 D RESIDENT COMMENT FORM Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/FIGS g<� Zone Change Application ZC16/015/F/GS r(-- 'uL Milan Kovacevic and Dean Kovacevic 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Please provide your feedback using this comment form. If required, please attach return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed below by July 31, 2015. I What do youlikeabout the proposal? iJq'ai rk ►. ek+-N�i 4V,e Cr },urs. L 2. 3. Please provide any additional comments below: l- v+f !4 {* ey Th erg. tel' .—_JaL,COW ,w. r SS UI hsE4fpla v r%k Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please addresses noted on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your r identifying information will be kept confidential in accordance with Freedom of Information res Name: Signature: Address_R1�..,,nti�� fir,,_ t�az tq Email: Phone: Date: 3 M - x To learn more about the planning process, please refer to the Ministry of Municipal Affair; Citizens' Guide to Land Use Planning at: http://www.mah.00v on nn/Page338 asnx Please direct all questions, comments and forms to: Garett Stevenson City Hall, P O. Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N213 4G7v1 PHONE: (519) 741-2200x 7070 n4 -ti FAX (519) 741-2624 TDDITYY' 1-866-969-9994 garett.stevenson@k/tchener-ca ang D02 Appen ix "E" to this form. Please L. commens from each iat all comments and id any olper personal Housing'o publication 2 -227 I DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:02 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Proposed apartment building on Avon Rd. and Frederick St. Dear Garett, I am a 2nd year student at Conestoga College taking Protection, Security and Investigation. I live on Avon Rd. in Kitchener, where I have lived my whole life, a few doors down from the site of the proposed development at 39 Avon Rd., 859 and 867 Frederick St. am writing this email to you to give you my concerns of the plan. Growing up, the neighbourhood was/is quite and is developed with single-family homes. An apartment building measuring 32.75 metres (or 10 storeys) would not only block the sun and the view of the trees from my backyard. Also the small town charm of knowing your neighbours by name and being able to talk to them whenever they walk by. When I walk down Avon Rd. to Frederick St. and I look over I don't want to see a big parking lot and an even bigger building on my way to the bus stop. A 10 -storey apartment building would not fit in with the neighbourhood considering the tallest buildings in the local vicinity are the Surrey Place Apartments, which are both six storeys tall. Have you thought about the risk management and crime prevention aspects of building such a large apartment building? Considering the amount of people that are going to be occupying the area. hope you will take my concerns seriously and reconsider the development. Sincerely, Conestoga Official Disclaimer: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may be privileged or confidential. Any distribution, printing or other use by anyone else is prohibited. If' you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately, and permanently delete this email and attachments. 2-228 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:25 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 859 & 867 Frederick, & 39 Avon Hi Garett The current zoning of three stories and eight stories should stand. The current zoning rules regarding parking should also stand. This kind of behavior is ruining our down town neighbourhoods and City staff should be ashamed of themselves for considering altering the zoning requirements. It is unfair to property owners who have made large investments in keeping the area presentable and discounts the property taxes paid to keep it that way. Parking, traffic, views, and wind tunnels start to effect nearby homes. They become rental property and the houses across from that suffers. It snowballs two, three streets in. Properties up and down Frederick are being bought up and destroyed. The back yards see every square inch paved with little concern for the bordering neighbours or neighbourhood. There is plenty of room along Victoria to increase density in the future. Sooner or later someone will do something about the crack -motels along there and it will be prime development property. Please consider us long-time residents, both upstream and downstream from this sort of development. Thank you clan 240 Frederick st. Kitchener ON 2-229 March 30, 2017 Via E-mail (garett.stevenson@kitchener.ca) Garett Stevenson Community Services Department City of Kitchener City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Stevenson: Re: 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/FIGS Zoning Change Application ZC15/01/F/GS DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" 01) GOWLING WLG John S. Doherty Direct +1 519 575 7518 Direct Fax +1 519 571 5018 john.doherty@gowlingwlg.com File no. K0554183 We represent . in her opposition to Official Plan Amendment Application OP/15/051F/GS (the "Proposed OPA") and Zone Change Application ZC15/015/FIGS (the "Proposed ZCA"). As noted in our previous letter dated August 13, 2015, we confirm our continued opposition to the application for the reasons previously noted, and the comments at the meeting of January 12, 2017 relating to the traffic, height and density being inappropriate for the location. We would ask that you advise us regarding the timing of any further Informal meetings, staff reports and the date for the statutory public meeting. Yours very truly, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP ,dohn S. Doherty JSD:hp cc: Client EDC_LAW\ 1621831\1 Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP T +1 519 576 6910 Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP is a member of Gowling WLG, an International law Flrm Suite 1020, 50 Queen Street North F +1 519 576 6030 which consists of independent and autonomous entities providing services around PO Box 2248 Kitchener ON N2H 6M2 Canada gowlingwig.corrl the world. Our structure is explained In more detail at owll& nnw .cog mlla Lai. 2-230 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 4:19 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road The following comments are being submitted on behalf of the North Waterloo Scout House located at 844 Frederick St. Kitchener. Since we are located directly across from the proposed development the impact would be profound,immense,immediate and impact our activities and use of the building greatly. Our building would be cast in darkness being in the shadow of such a monstrosity. With a limited number of windows facing Frederick St. every glimmer of sunshine and light is important. The traffic is already heavy and just crossing the street requires patience and stealth to navigate a safe crossing especially during the regular morning and afternoon rush hours. When snow clearing is required the plow operator does the lot at 5am due to traffic and not being able to back out onto Frederick St with the morning volume later on. Our parking lot is often used by unauthorized users. Out of complete frustration and the inability to keep vehicles out on Fridays we decided to have a friendly discussion with the Kitchener Masjid and have allowed parking. It is not without some problems but a matter of Scouts Canada. generously being good neighbours. We have also given permission to the Alzheimer's Society to use our parking lot when they host large family and community events. We have been impacted over the years with more garbage blowing from across the street and the Turner Ave. properties onto our property which has required more paid and volunteer hours to pick up litter. The bus stop being in front of the building has also been a contributor to this issue. Numerous requests for a garbage can to be placed out front have been ignored even though there was one previously before they moved the stop. There is no need for more commercial space because there is a spa and dental office next door and would not be fair to them or all the other struggling retailers on Victoria St., local plazas and malls. There are already empty retail spaces at the malls who would be only to happy to have tenants. Commercial space would only acerbate the parking and traffic problems. The development is not in keeping with the current look and design of the very well established, pleasant Rosemount and surrounding neighbourhoods that the Scouting community enjoys hiking,exploring, volunteering and being a part of. This winter a geocache was registered online by a local group in Rosemount Park after a day enjoyed adventuring.. Prepared and submitted by Michelle Coyle on behalf of the North Waterloo Scout House Group, 844 Frederick St. Kitchener, N213 288, 519-742-8325 alternate 519-741-5255 michelle.coyle.@scouts.ca or Respectfully 2-231 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 2:26 PM To: Garett Stevenson Cc: Subject: Re: Neighbourhood Information Meeting Follow Up Apologies - swapping out my correct email address in the Cc lines (bad autocorrect!) Regards, On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Hi Garett, wrote: Thanks for the follow up. The meeting yesterday was very informative and I appreciate the time and effort you put in to plan and deliver it. You have a tough job... standing in front of a group of people that you know will be upset and confrontational. I had every intention of approaching the meeting very factually but, in the end, even I couldn't keep the emotions at bay and my anger came through (I'm the woman in the pink sweater). I will complete and submit the comment sheet. But I did want to pass on this constructive feedback first... Despite the distaste I showed to this proposal, I am not against or resistant to the intensification of older established neighbourhoods. I've seen first-hand the benefits it's brought to other neighborhoods in the city, particular those in the downtown, cores. The gentrification and rejuvenation of King Street and Victoria Street are shinning examples of how investments in intensification have breathed new life areas that were viewed as undesirable. I'm really quite excited to see how those areas continue to thrive over the next years. That said, my neighbourhood is not undesirable and is not in need of gentrification. We're an older, established little enclave and we're very proud of our little slice of paradise. Accordingly, we're protective of it and will fight against any perceived threats to it. And that's what's happening. I am very well aware that a development of some sort will happen in the proposed properties. In fact, I think that's a positive change and I do welcome it. As long as it fits. The current proposal doesn't fit. And people are mad about that. You would likely encounter zero opposition from the neighbourhood if those properties were to be redeveloped as duplexes, townhouses, triplexes, or fourplexes. That said and in an effort to be constructive in this dialogue, I would be receptive to the current proposal IF the following changes were made to the proposal: Max height of S stories (no zoning exceptions allowed) - at 8 stories, it would still be the tallest building in the neighbourhood by 2 stories. Min parking spots of 1.5 per unit (no bylaw exceptions allowed) - we already have a known problem with parking, so any consideration of exceptions seems reckless to the safety and well-being of those who live in the neighbourhood Mature trees planted in the landscaping buffer between the above -ground parking and Avon Street (mature trees from the start... no saplings!) - any way you look at it, parking lots are unsightly and no one wants to look at them from their kitchen windows. 2-232 No commercial units in the development (residential units only!) - that pipe -jualApp ,kion walking distance of everything one can possible need: tons of restaurants, a pharmacy, a convenience story, a pub, a grocery store, a hardware store, many pet stores, hair salons, spas, etc. Commercial units will simply acerbate the already challenging parking / traffic problems and would draw outside traffic into the neighborhood, further adding to an increasingly reckless situation. Rosemount Park deveIopnjen# & play structure iustaDation - The City of Kitchener has already identified that this neighbourhood is lackiug'parks for children to play at (the only ores are at the dead end on Manchester m -id across the very busy River Road on Manchester). Since the proposal already includes a pedestrian access to currently -barren Rosemount Park, the developers need to put something in the parr for the kids in the neighbourhood (e.g. Play structure, swings, benches, garbage cans, etc.). It would earn good will from the-aei,ghbours.. Increased & proactive parking and property standards enforcement of the development - the developers behind this proposal have earned themselves a bad reputation for poor property management standards in the neighbourhood and have been the subject of numerous (numerous) complaints to bylaw and the city. If they have such poor results with two small walkup buildings, concerns about them managing an 8 story building are very justified and very real. Respectfully, 2-233 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:25 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: Re: Neighbourhood Information Meeting Follow Up Thanks Garrett. I appreciated the meeting. The discussion was good, a little redundant at times, but its hard to control that. Is there an online comment form we can fill out instead of the paper you gave out last night? My comments would be -we see no reason why the current.height bylaws should change. They are in place to protect all of us. And expand the community the way we, and the city, want it to grow. -Pedestrian infrastructure is not adequate to support this building in that location. Their are no sidewalks on Victoria, where all of the services are, and there are limited ways for pedestrians to cross Frederick and Victoria. -Visual barriers should be Mandatory for AVON street. Setting back the parking lot, and adding 10 feet of landscaping. -Building Design is inadequate. It does not visually fit the area. It will set precedent for future buildings along Frederick and design should be a top priority of your team. -who is advocating for the poor families in the two triplexes? They likely rent and are not present. How is it right that this project completely engulf their space. Thank you 2-234 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Mr. Stevenson: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:10 PM Garett Stevenson re: 859-867 Frederick St. Neighbourhood Meeting Stevensonl jpeg; stevenson2 jpeg I have one additional comment to make I found the meeting did not provide enough information, on apartment size, number of 1 -bedroom and 2 bedroom units, whether there were laundry facilities in each unit and other amenities planned by the developer. How does the reputation of the builder affect the city's decision-making? Attached is the comment sheet you provided. Thank you. 25 Applewood Avenue Kitchener, Ontario N2B 1V9 2-235 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" B" ON 5/051F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Load Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concept -"->f ch changes do you not prefer? ,`U',y-e 'rkf. Ont[171 1 , S � � L"c E1�i°vri Lv� ✓�'��2'Yi"i Gr�l llr �-t� �r UwP, P i2 i rr? Er �r .:ti �'y ,'e- j L,r C mf 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? —Ifv-ove- -3-t 4 Jon J; Clm H c�m�✓�c� �n 'Yli 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do youhaveany comments on the requested commercial land uses? -tt-4((7t,C_ C0elCE r'YI �3" -Lk'e S f'lC' r L✓^V1ce5 re r"ect5 CRr^e Ci-t/a[1111`2 <. 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? COf1 �rC�t'r'r1Ct✓'✓IS tv�ie� LUCJ r( ar C"r ect-_- f 'I tcz. C -r 3q 4,101, i5 a-, ex.gYnS,ye Jc,-r Tlh e J e l ull r Cet. .n bet s,i �y .U�- ell 1- G� /au,r%d G �irL"-Ile e/ 41e (/i i� OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS {4{r Page 1/2 it 2-236 DSD -20-002 Appendix T" OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS iEUE V P 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road FED 94 ^01-i Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Below are our responses to questions 1 to 5 1. We like the fact that the entrance is on Frederick St. And there will be only 10 storeys although it would be more acceptable if there were only 8 storeys. It would fit into the neighbourhood better and that is what the land is zoned for. 2. We do not like the idea of commercial spaces on the main floor facing Frederick Street. We do not need the extra traffic and it does not fit with our area. There are plenty of commercial spaces available on Victoria Street. 3. We would like to see a barrier combination of fence and landscaping around the parking lot. 4. The commercial space on the main floor is totally not necessary and will create unnecessary traffic problems for this area. 5. The biggest problem for this area will be the increase of traffic and negative effects it will have on this area. Name: I Signature: Address: 43 Applewood Avenue, Kitchener N213 1V9 (no email address) Phone: Feb 18, 2017 2-237 DSD -20-002 Appendix T" OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? We like that the number of stories has been reduced from 12 to 10, although we still believe the building should be limited to the 8 stories it is currently zoned for. We also like that access to the parking lot has been limited to Frederick St. We like the idea of the main floor space being designed for commercial use. We believe that high quality, community oriented small businesses could make the apartment building a better fit for the neighbourhood. 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? We would prefer that the building be 8 stories instead of 10. We bought our house in August, 2016 and were unaware of the proposed developments. We refused to buy homes in many neighbourhoods because they are too close to apartment, buildings. The city of Kitchener is lacking residential neighbourhoods set away from apartment buildings and busy streets. We are heartbroken to know that we spent as much money as we did to buy a home that will soon have a view of an apartment building. Had we known this, we would not have bought a house in this neighbourhood. We would greatly appreciate that the height of the building be kept to a reasonable height. We are also not a fan of the "modern" design. We would prefer a more classic design. 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? We would like to see more greenery and landscaping. We would like to see that the development fits in with the nature of our mature neighbourhood. We also want to be ensured that the grounds will be well cared for. In particular, we are concerned that the owners will not comply with snow removal by-laws and that there will be an increase in the amount of littering in the area. 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? Coffee shops, restaurants, art studios, "boutique" shops 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? We believe it is most important to consider whether or not the proposals in these applications will add optimal value to the neighbourhood and the city. When we tell people that we bought a house in Kitchener, the reaction we usually get is that Kitchener is not a great city to live in. We believe that Kitchener has more potential than many people who have never lived here give it credit for. However, we found it very difficult to find a quiet family neighbourhood in Kitchener. When we look at the other apartment buildings on Frederick St and consider the condition of the current dwellings owned and cared for by the applicants, we do not feel encouraged that a larger scale version will make the area more desirable for hard working families searching for a peaceful neighbourhood to call home. �3 38 DSD -20-002 Appendix T" ON 5/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road L Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? i-.. ..`} cv,4— ,-T r. Ir" A --r2 -63 f--kr,.Jj Y'p f -}CCC f " 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? -- h ►C What additional changes do you suggest for the development prop-6sal? C -1t) l�- p-"/ 7 , r'Q p1Ji 4 7 Ca 0.0 YUC 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 1.4 —, . --- L ; Lr C— , r4�, , .. r -1 irOA i Yk C ra A a d 'r s f:2 it iA 5. ` What do you think it is the srngle most Impor Issue for Manning stafr arano}uncil to consider forthes appllcations7 15 r 1' C f r` I f ' . ?,G t y)'} s -j ` haf i ie-- #4� ��7� --C-UroC.IC I' C — � Cal ' f ka&c � ' � (r ' {1 q rg,t l ( 117OLT r L�e 9,` t C]P15f f75JFjGs 1/2 & ZC15/ai:�/r�rG y. Page i�L 2-239 115/05/F%GS-& zC151015/FiG DSD-20-002 Appendix T" D & U7 TredericK Btreet & 31� AvonRtoad dghbourhood Information Meeting Ccpmment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Informatic ji-i Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of tbi%fr2rm,%PigJ?sat L Thinking about the original and revised developmer i-. concepts, which changes do you like? . Thinking about the original and revised develops 7'l.ient concepts, which changes do you not prefer? 3, What additional changes do you suggest for the de -%t )Jopment proposal? 4. New commercial uses are.proposed for the main f l,00r of the building_(facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested coma i-7ercial land uses? What do you think it is the single most import,-i?it issue for Planning staff and Council to r,nn..iri.er.frir tl�ers� ar Jir.�tinns.? C C S -4 5 } 2� USU-LU J ON 5/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not pref r? '� &1A ft 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? -- - -5 . Aw T_A 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consSder for these applications? OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS CT O/V /W " - 2 Page 1 g / MEN -11 -M M DSD -20-002 Ap 0 P I 5/05/FIG S & ZC151015/F} G S 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avory Road Nei9hbouriiood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. _- Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? 2, Thinkrrr.sf abut the original arkd revised develriprbent concepts, which changes do you not urr_ fe.r? 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments ori the requested commercial land uses? - E � - r r3 -s --+rte.. i • - � - 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? r. 0 P-1 5/05/ F/G S & Z 1/015 F/G 5 } Page 1/2 err_ �Ia2� 2-242 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" `,>I"I'(A IF:NI?R 0P15/05/FIGS & ZC15/015/FIGS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revisedr /development concepts, which changes do you like? _ VCc moi; f Q. `i i-i`•�"ll�i] -�0 -ft�t I�Git r!f�l!( Z�� II / 10 1���il �j[ 9/ 1 -�Uai ! . } l.a 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? .x' Luo -cid ?y,+-fCt. ")- adGi Vv ' f1 �.'',f`Gf.L 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? .'Aocold if et t,, c- 0�,t 1"1 4/tet (E� U4;odyj ��i �l � r�l�l�f�ji J'/JGi�J 1�'/ GUii� (,��COinrf /��tiu lki 4. New commerc uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? /Lc; t' ih., ,6 !,M iu 6A1-,c�wthu(d off a-/11 ',Cita v�d' Gxca 7�4 ��c'Gr t 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? -1 �` � �� Gf /j(' (t'/�21< i'PG� • ' ./' ij u �<< f 9nc I� C'/ `��rn pct CCUi� lIG t"1��� �lCf�yi ���1�iic,� jhtc ✓_yt').ic(il n c/0 /,tai U - AJ ib SP!uj" OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 R 41 �Ose DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" 44, fik`tct-.i;. 3 07 ^ fil OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS r ,. 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road: ►t 1' `°''""` Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? L�I�/ytr✓,t aGLCff rr�Ovtd � �C�/�I�c 7 V Au/ (f!' 41 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not %prefer? _ f' wGtY �'s iGrt�s a �stc� To C(/aN CoNfiQ¢� /�HCiIRf/H c1.7�✓ G 4�rc� a�✓�g,7 Gfar .r/lqd bCs�t a /�ov�d 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the develo Ment proposal? Q /'Odes ayviise les Ile 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any coo/mmentson the requested commercial mmercial land uses? 4Cf--alyEd/rig eaf .ra ct,!jjYfif ,. �l� W `I<O��Y/l/�C%a�ittst � 1 arq C.o�Bet%[Kle ,� o/�C !'Ccs c { �,rci�r ts" o�c lGa o /�i�y ar ' /oZ/"z► / / / �lO—f-lG�f- r! /' �' '� ic/'/q �iK iN fro ct/�Cq aC�'O ff //�lC � Gose R(�'la ctW�yy�� 5. What do you think it is the single most important isdue for Planning staff and Council is es consider for these applications? / / �-� • Orly 14 r� P'[ �.s.;t/V I iI'd4 ,/ / er 'Ife � :v 41 ewl/ cull O Sf 05NGS & ZC1T5/G 5/F/GS P a 1/22 e arae 1 s..•vr ri a. �j C �� a'7�.+-, �....� r GGt��d^C•r �`h rt ,? t�vii71 d/lal f ra77.'7jkb�41 71,hl abiif V40 �� L, a /y-2 f DSD -20-002 ON 5/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/FIGS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form ix T" Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like?— NO;,� r= jr— T!-Iciq-E Is, % 8-e RE-z)GvO—01°Em eN-r i -r Skou -D Se gWr STRPGTLV WITH ln1 �frrlt � �,� �n ���ihi T sT'�EYSa �s� Z���vTr� U►vt i S G r�i�,`Jd 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? ��✓f7 !� Bc RE57Rlc.?r� io .S'eY. �72C-�i'S � ��� ii _ Cry rWE' DeVjC - -SIREN WI -'IC 4 IS THS JVG9 Z�_ "����5 d. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? c�2tc1: Sr Rr�fl 1�eLio����� ,j�.sv�, I<s�''O2ymousy, �►+r�E�2�Qft-ufit �cS i7E2 r t/G=rfQA it3 i,a ir`tif lS-5��'�PiAf'"i Wat�� �' 7` !. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? T 1 - or- RU s figs CSVnOKrr W11-5 P.,u i L, -c A- �. o� � n, ; 5 i'1A&—A AwD Rd -:5 RURAA 41KC RP-e—E /WCE- i�er 7 UIL-j:ENjq P('OpZG:a WoUL.. j2c MUCH 0iNG2 ®N -1-RG AREA ,+i`rwr �t 7-� K-- N C -E 7-746 rt Page iJ OP15/05/f/GS & ZC15/Oi5/F/G5 DSD-2D=002--A7ppe'nd1x-"`F" ON 5/05/F/GS & ZG15/015IFIGS 659 & 367 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Fora Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and.revised development concepts, which changes do you like? . I v►c.�r �r 1�� �w� 12-d� jo'wwr Zs 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? fV7 `telGve'- wk'�T IT 1's b,"dA'- 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? e el 0 s had yi si 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? t° �►� �_ t ��P�- � � �t _ ti�ru �ir[.�- �f � 1--e- � ��u lis,- e_ ��� .�-� 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? SSV�s OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 NkYAR'e A 2-246 ' ` Kl-ru tT?\1? C__�[ OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original avid revised development concepts, which changes do you like? - driveway access moved to Frederick Street (from Avon Road) building is 2 storeys shorter, 2.25 metres shorter - BUT still not enough change. MUST be 8 total - no change to 39 Avon Road policies/regulations 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? - neighbourhood scaled commercial units - this is slightly better than live/work, but still invites heavy in/out traffic use too close to the intersection. Rather they just be more living units 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? - conform to the by-law parking spaces of 1.5 - conform to the by-law height of 8 stories or less 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? - per above, this is a double edged sword. For e.g., a convenience store may be of benefit, but it's obvious this will create a new traffice hazard as cars pull in and out, and larger vehicles try to offload goods 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? -traffic: vehicular flow in the area will be impeded plus other routes will become congested, and vehicular parking will definitely spill out onto our streets as illegal parking abounds, bringing with all its related problems. OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 A,Yti ti' 2-247 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? I do not like either the original or revised changes. No changes to the bylaws are needed. 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? I do not like either the original or revised changes. No changes to the bylaws are needed. 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? No changes to the bylaws should be allowed for this development. 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? They must comply with current bylaws. Nothing else is acceptable. 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? The single most important issue is that the currently bylaws be respected and no changes to them should be made. OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 Lo\Js. 2-24 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" Fri l'(1 W%Ni R OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road _Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1 Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? ,r -ell 3 What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? Ove no , ,tet � , . o��e. �o , ct � s,� - . f � _.y ; / la 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? 6-10 OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 r �JO'�. DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" ®P15/051F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS - 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original an/d!I revised development concepts, which changes do you like? A- AjA�14 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? s ,..__ '�-�--�``. � cam` io�w c� S'�'✓'�_ �-� aft PC;�_?� C,�.-� 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? � OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 _ _ --- — - MCS Ceps 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? I Reduction in total number of units Reduction in total height of the building The "ground -oriented" street townhouses along Avon Rd (this is a very excellent revision as it is much more sympathetic to the existing facades/style of single -dwelling homes along this road and neighbourhood) * The reduction of the FSR to comply with existing zoning regulations The elimination of accesses from Avon Rd and their rerouting to Frederick St Elimination of the live -work units y Maintenance of the existing low-rise policies with regards to 39 Avon Rd 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? Addition of conventional neighbourhood commercial spaces on the main floor Exposed parking along Avon Rd 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? Provision of off-street parking in accordance with current zoning: 1.5/unit plus additional 20% for visitor parking. As well, if the commercial spaces do get approved (which I am against), provision of additional spaces again in compliance with their designated usage (including the required accessible spaces in accordance with 6.7.1 of the bylaw) Reduction in both the number of stories and the total height of the building to comply with existing zoning (8 stories, 24.0 meters) Elimination of any uses other than residential (ie no return to live -work units, no commercial units of any kind) Ensuring that current zoning is adhered to with regards to minimum landscaped area. This is a mature neighbourhood with mature trees and large frontages that are landscaped and well-maintained. It would be preferential if the landscaped area reflected that, especially along Avon where it directly integrates (ie minimal landscaping along Frederick as required to present a nice fagade, maximized landscaping allotment along Avon to block unsightly parking lot and larger trees along the pedestrian access to provide as much privacy as possible to existing residents) 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? First of all, I am strongly against exceptions to existing zoning by allowing commercial uses at all. I see no benefit to the neighbourhood at all as we abut a commercial corridor that provides all of our needs (and which also has several empty units for lease at any given time). I also object to commercial use on this property with regards to having more people on these lots and in the adjacent neighbourhood than there already will be with Page 1 of 2 2-251 OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS DSD-20-002 p e?d^11,,1 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form r;tX.9MUNiTYuf i-NICE-) O."7T, 52 Plaza Court, MANNINJ G15'i; ICON' 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? I Reduction in total number of units Reduction in total height of the building The "ground -oriented" street townhouses along Avon Rd (this is a very excellent revision as it is much more sympathetic to the existing facades/style of single -dwelling homes along this road and neighbourhood) * The reduction of the FSR to comply with existing zoning regulations The elimination of accesses from Avon Rd and their rerouting to Frederick St Elimination of the live -work units y Maintenance of the existing low-rise policies with regards to 39 Avon Rd 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? Addition of conventional neighbourhood commercial spaces on the main floor Exposed parking along Avon Rd 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? Provision of off-street parking in accordance with current zoning: 1.5/unit plus additional 20% for visitor parking. As well, if the commercial spaces do get approved (which I am against), provision of additional spaces again in compliance with their designated usage (including the required accessible spaces in accordance with 6.7.1 of the bylaw) Reduction in both the number of stories and the total height of the building to comply with existing zoning (8 stories, 24.0 meters) Elimination of any uses other than residential (ie no return to live -work units, no commercial units of any kind) Ensuring that current zoning is adhered to with regards to minimum landscaped area. This is a mature neighbourhood with mature trees and large frontages that are landscaped and well-maintained. It would be preferential if the landscaped area reflected that, especially along Avon where it directly integrates (ie minimal landscaping along Frederick as required to present a nice fagade, maximized landscaping allotment along Avon to block unsightly parking lot and larger trees along the pedestrian access to provide as much privacy as possible to existing residents) 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? First of all, I am strongly against exceptions to existing zoning by allowing commercial uses at all. I see no benefit to the neighbourhood at all as we abut a commercial corridor that provides all of our needs (and which also has several empty units for lease at any given time). I also object to commercial use on this property with regards to having more people on these lots and in the adjacent neighbourhood than there already will be with Page 1 of 2 2-251 OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS DSD -20-002 Appendix T" 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form , 52 Plaza Court, the high-density residential proposal. Lastly, the owners are already encountering issues with regards to parking as exemplified by their request to reduce the required off-street parking rate. Should commercial units be approved, this would only worsen this design concern with its additional parking requirements. That being said, IF commercial uses do end up being integrated into the building, I would prefer to see them as professional (i.e. health services, independent financial services such as investment planners, esthetics/hair, grooming) use as opposed to retail or food -service. My main concern when I say this is, again, impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. I feel that professional uses will incur less traffic of all kinds and will operate during more restricted hours. Restaurants and retail (especially convenience stores which are common with multiple dwellings) would attract a more diverse (and not necessarily more desirable) demographic and at potentially odd hours. This is a concern in terms of noise and light pollution with regards to customers coming and going as well as in terms of traffic (vehicular in quiet neighbourhood and pedestrian in a neighbourhood already plagued with petty crime during the night). 5. What do you think is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? I feel that the most important consideration is to minimize the negative impact on existing residents by developing within the parameters of the existing zoning and legal Official City Plan. I say this because the current residents chose this area based on its current development and the safe and intimate sense of community found in this highly - desirable, mature, single -dwelling neighbourhood. While we understand that development is imminent both on these two properties and those which sell along Frederick in the future, minimizing the change to those appealing characteristics is paramount to preserving the integrity of the existing community. To this end, I feel the Planners and the Council members should ensure that the existing parking minimums (off-street, visitor, commercial and accessible) are met to prevent exacerbation of a known existing issue. Additionally, the height (in both stories and in metres) should be at their existing maximums (8 and 24m respectively) to be as sympathetic as is possible in this case with the surrounding area and to reduce the inevitable negative aspects of noise, light, traffic and privacy. The property owners purchased these properties with the knowledge of their existing zoning restrictions. If they were to build in accordance with those it would still be in violation of many portions of the currently legal Official City Plan. There seems to be no avoiding that as they will most certainly not be building at less than any given minimum. Please preserve our neighbourhood's atmosphere as best you can by keeping the build within current bylaw zoning standards. Imagine that this was proposed alongside your home. Page 2 of 2 2-252 - peen ix O P 15/05/F/G S & ZC 15/015/F/G S 1 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road DEPI. PU%fylidfP3. DlVf 10N Neighbourhood Information Meetin�Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 7 , Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? Kces,1 l 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? . What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? y-s�-<- _ f, yv> } �}. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? -L-:_-.(! - OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 0 Page 1/2 4Km-i If?Nf.-R �_ M [OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road�t���t; Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? (AA/— /L2 c 2V 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? /Jill' -<-z Cti (tl 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? L?JIF a 'r 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" ON 5/05/F/GS & ZC 15/015/F/G S 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road �...Neighbourhood Information Meeting Cornment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original pl� and revised ' l d)evelop�ment concepts, which changes do you like? Lir e R _._ Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? f ) IA� S-1 e 0--P i j 6 Act 1 -�'6 a 5 C� t\ N j-, 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? J\)d,, I �T SIM �- � f*n CL 1� New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? � �.• � a< �' fir` [`", �' 1--" 0 L0' OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS (�� Pa e 1/2 -Prrci OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? A19,,) 3vo,CS- / FA 0-- P /—d -d C fi 4 L S�✓c%� ,� 'T 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not r,� prefer? v rc/l�Icr(/rr �o� etj�r f�,✓G. lidI✓9 d4 /J S a /S , S�i�r� Lp <o,✓S, />��' / 4516)a 6WX)VJ -yq AS / �l S_ �, 1 d11J 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? a 1D �r 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? /"71 11✓9 T� ���1 /Y&%—&9 L () 1-/�i,/—, AS N`t LP STS a L2 zra 4-) l r :.r3 hC A J,) rhe } 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? �/C/e' f}"S t Fi"/C -4rt�% /. ')"Y\ 1 �k' ^?r/i d n� f l �/✓CG f /f �Lf D All & A) —10 /✓ lS � �A S�v�/�"Gc'r. �d/J,�;,e %4i -),D VA�Kr<S ro ,J6- �vr✓,✓ OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 ma.Tfl 4'r DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS� _ i,' 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road ` Oman . Neighbourhood Information Meetin a errt Four ^ ;.. I , r7. 4:}-=- Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. /Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? C'C;5' G .?, Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? / 3. ' What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? Ji Cr LvL Zee, 1-4 0' J C max. �t ,�'� � 1�r�li"i{���rt - r�� :� ✓_.� �1 H New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you havee�eany comments onthe {r�e,ques erd commercial landr. uses?' {l.L 4'( x J "tf. ,- L -u ✓ ff � 5 L4 i y( f_ f. + J 5. What do you think it is the single most impo nt issue for Planning staff and;Cgunci to consider Fir these applications' r c'� G'7.�'� .</l 77,e L6'1GG 17 OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 1 `- i ���► OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? -Mort S-Vll 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? . A C. 3. What additional changes do you suggest four the developmen proposal? ` c- "' - `� 1 tom'\ LA -'M :f - I 4. New commercial usesre proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? Ox IV-) T7�6'e ie—__ --- hzxo j,/ l/�/` i� VVIR / • �.- 7 r +-. f %/ - /F Z -,,c 5. What do you thi k it is the single most important isae for Planning staff and Council tom 4r consider for these applications?ell, P f -Alm- EkE OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS �rI _ -'l V?r'7 .. fi..Yr~ r. fr r'7 .:'I;� t jgj�rrci ' OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Roadr.t,t1�t� Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? n- z6 Li 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? ecl�lT�- ts 1101i-'_ 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? tie S SP-'G6-ruS 29 , G ec-G U_ GO Cc L -b /'7 C A- FC FT C' kb a® 1-7e7z_ C1q-1' VCL4L ( R-tt 61V136r 1Lj'eCrs:A . 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 6 CHC H £ % E ke T e F— 771Y l C't l �'� l f f* ( —5"K- C_ L C 't, S (ik t iZ "—z IZ i 27n,r C '1-3 -' Zx d L tie S SP-'G6-ruS 29 , G ec-G U_ GO Cc L -b /'7 C A- FC FT C' kb a® 1-7e7z_ C1q-1' VCL4L ( R-tt 61V136r 1Lj'eCrs:A . 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 6 C- 7T ' K-.% i'k` t C*i1i. / ✓ �(�'� C i `' [ " 6-C l C't l �'� l f 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? E . :tL C D F'4 c r IRE r F1 T 'fir- i� t' � � ���3�-gig 16e, OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 Kj'rc:i IF ER ..w rOP1 5/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form af��,�ru},��-!�c:�.zf.�.PT. Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? �- �a�-c, as 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS ick Page 1/2 9�-S$ 6 0 / DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" 1'i It ry 1 F ON 5/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS ,859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form ` Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? 9 S 40/ -ins t A 0 C a H-, h`�>� r c, � e"/ o iv ! T -S a- ;7 c �, �� 7 � fib .9 eq New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? D !- C%C /Z dip rl 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? / ! v 1 c> C-- f' t CLy, C, -e 5 -e- i" 0 /7 e. b I n cr A I. _ IP P'e n 7,n r c 4 1 �l I h� �-h ��{ re�h, .� h o t,. ii U OPj15/05*/F/GS & ZC1.5/015/F/GS Page 1/2 "'�+�I�.. d ��S,� µF1%i Y{"t f' 1 60.- C. -4f 4 01 CIO /j - j x� �� !� l+h %U f^'2 ` �lvV AYy 0 t? +atm ® /)U �` 1i /_' KI'F(a >IF I:R <_ 4- 1 RiECEIVED OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS �' 1 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Conar'u�4_1'ySEHVICESD&P Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form 171.ANNINGDivf,'10" Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? / Ll Ke ,) ap 57fOa6lV G Z_Y 61f 6,-' 5 7— r NC c7 LD rc i,JE: F 1:,Z:_ Iq y/ tz vi 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? IF LILL Pfi RK) 1V0 1-0 T- (5 7—C, rfq (�E— `W7_0 DN RJ), l� SIiG -psi V1 55 -1-38L 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 'f ` KI -111 IFNER OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS _ JAN 92M 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road GOhrNltJyl i Y aLr,vlGE:a nEFfi'. Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form D!V!slON Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? M d. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 < rc:t tr:Nr.R JAN ' OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS CONIMUf IVY St•"f "W"L t c r 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road MANNING F):Vt 11,'J Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? l 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? lot oil 3. What additional changes do you surest for the development proposal? 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? C> C4�-PX4) • � " OP15 05 F GS & ZC15 015 F GS �4ke Q—V Page 1/2 Id� 4S DSD -20-002 Appendix T" 1. 1 like the entrance of the apartment complex moved to Frederick Street as well as the number of floors being reduced to 10 storeys. However I feel the builder should keep the building at 8 storeys as the property is zoned for. 2. 1 am not in favour of the commercial spaces on the main floor of the building along Frederick Street. 3. Along with the reduction to 8 storeys and the deletion of commercial offices on the main floor, I would like to see a 4' fence and landscaping around the parking lot on Avon Road and along the property line of the house beside the parking lot. 4. 1 would not like to see any commercial use on the main floor of the building as this would significantly increase traffic on Frederick Street and make it even harder to get out on Avon Road. Leave this area residential as we have enough commercial businesses on Victoria Street. 5. 1 think the single most important issues for Planning Staff and Council to consider is the increase of traffic in and around this subdivision. There are enough problems with traffic already at the two main intersections to the subdivision; that being Frederick St / Avon Road and River Road / Manchester Road. However another area of importance is to maintain the nice residential area and not bring in commercial business on Frederick Street. As well as the traffic issues, this could also have a potential negative effect on our house values. 2-265 LVi# S+J. VV ..1i 11 w,f VLVI 114d1',v, I U.S.,,F rILUUUlil �l �l, DSD -20-002 Appendix T" January 16, 2017 Garrett Stevenson ` City of Kitchener Planning �`tt Fax 519 7412624 Dear Mr. Stevenson; Its#_� )ne chane pplication C15/415ZF/G5 I think that it is really sad what is being done to our neighbourhood. I fell In love with our property on 95 Monterey Crescent, 25 years ago. Nobody had loved the house In many years, but I did. My husband, not so much, he thought that it was a money pit. He was right, but we have lovingly restored it. We don't travel in the summer, choosing instead to enjoy our backyard. Over the years we have. seen the dominoes start to fall. Precedents were set, with people buying up homes and turning them into businesses, pulling them down and putting up townhouses, severing off land and putting up apartments. These are people who band together with money to outbid others who want to raise their families. These people want to destroy our nelghbourhoods to make money and then to move on to destroy other neighbourhoods, They will push the rules and boundaries constantly, testing to see how far they can go. How sad that you let them. Would you want to sit on your deck and look at that building? I can't grow a tree big enough, or quickly enough to give me any privacy in my backyard. I will be constantly overlooked. We thought that moving to a neighbourhood with big backyards was a plus. Now It seems that we are being punished. Don't change the bylaws. They are there for a reason. Don't allow people who buy up these homes to tear them down and ruin family neighbourhoods. Yours sincerely 2-266 C-4 ��:► i► _�:,� fix �� 7� - �� z OP15105/FIGS & ZC15/015/FIGS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road-`f�i_� Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form FEB ?017 Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please proVid_&; +Vur+feedback using this rr�ts ee e e • return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed f6n'­'th'b'back of this form bXpbnuary 28, 207. _. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? r ;LQ 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? __- 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? -n 7 /f11 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? S. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS (�e l r rc,, sf- i�lf R-,fiycm_) U Page 1/ -:k,7e�*T l"f//y f OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS (�e l r rc,, sf- i�lf R-,fiycm_) U Page 1/ -:k,7e�*T OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? I / L Z- TO 0 /9 L LL t' /� G �> > t) o r �J ��/f (3� Citi ALL"lam FU/-• (61-( "L -5 1Y /-1 /1 LLS (`L05L 13 7-(j6 N(We14 -Toe I;FrIC U6v1Rr-a 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? /-/ /'S IJ 2 G J L C f 1 5 7/t � r tc/ U J -lR 1 L /3 U /L /� / k16 S G /U /9 v o c) 5 7-I1E'-l-7LRLe�f- 6---v✓Zy A6'A�er/,4U-tirS - 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? /V y r it./ L" C L 5 S- /4 L C s' c6 G 5 c /3 — v 1-0 7 /1 E -I—AA FP /2cli3LEN/ l= /Z I= D C R / C /C 6 r • 'J L C 0 0-r e) -r(o e� L /g -/-/f 1-/Z '�5- 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? Zv L- p a ti/ 0- Z,U >9 ,cam,T 7- /-j / s / /� Cl U �` !� ✓� L l /IRE- 1-14L 0 (; 0C-L61/0EP 5 T// C j/ -)ML PE0J'[.L (f)l-/d �wlU i l -J �� TCc) 0 4LL /2G/-�) /3P/C/L /IPP/9RrM1,7tii S 0 iV l'� U C lv - As L K r D 11 G /2 G K L !2'T (-0 P V OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS —Eage-1.1-2— •0 X/ (/ i C 14f9 -ti Gc Z0Kj//-'G='/4-U,/ f .0 >4 6 E T e' N L 11, c-- r 0 0 ,v 5 rL 7 1-J L c1 / l iL5,t - P /'/-) 0 U i 7// /• ti /L '7-H A T 1'U z�- LU Z /Z L N /'7 y 0 G /2 6 l(. /-s t n � �� ,L� / � :�/] C e - / .7 �u♦ r= c /� M 8 7- C) � // / G ly /- t ti s / 7 /�/c DSD -20-002 Appendix "F" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 9:12 AM To: Garett Stevenson; Scott Davey Subject: Fwd: FW: Second Neighbourhood Information Meeting - 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Attachments: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png; image006.png; image007.png; image008.png; image009.png Hi Garet: I made a mistake in point 10 and it should read as follows: 10) I still think he should be going with the 1.25 spaces per unit and not any less that is required. I find that other apartments that I go to always seem to have a shortage of spaces especially around holidays and special events. We do NOT want to have more people parking on Avon Rd. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: _ Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 7:03 AM Subject: Re: FW: Second Neighbourhood Information Meeting - 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road To: Garet Stevenson <Garett.Stevensonnkitchener.ca> Cc: Scott Davey <Scott.Daveykkitchener.ca> Hi Garet: Just to let you know that I did not receive the email from last week. I will be at the meeting on Nov 21. Here are my concerns to the current proposal. 1) The property in question is currently zoned for 8 stories and I do not want to see it go above that. At the last meeting the bylaw or suggestions that were mentioned stated that buildings should fit in within the neighborhood. By that account we should not have a building more that 3 stories high. This needs to be brought down as far as I am concerned. 2) From my experience the picture attached will not look like the one you have included. It will look close but not the same especially the landscaping. I want to know how you will enforce how the building and landscape will match the pictures. 3) There is no picture that shows the view from Avon Rd. I would like to see a view that shows 39 Avon Rd and the 2 buildings on Avon Rd, currently ?? & ?? Avon Rd. to get a better feel how this area will look especially the parking and whatever landscaping there is going to be there. I think we need to hide the parking lot behind landscaping so that this area will not be such an eye sore. 2-269 4) What is included in the Exterior Amenity Area? What is it to be used for? DSD -20-002 Appendix T" 5) What is included in the Adult Amenity Area? What is it to be used for? 6) What is Drop Off BFC shown on the map? 7) What kind of material, landscaping will be between the above ground parking and 39 Avon Rd. 8) How many parking spots are underground and how many are above ground in the current proposal? 9) Where is the snow to be piled? How many parking spots will be taken away because of that? 10) I still think he should be going with the 1.25 spaces per unit and not any less that is required. I find that other apartments that I go to always seem. to have a shortage of spaces especially around holidays and special events. We do want to have more people parking on Avon Rd. 11) Is it possible to get a better map as there are items on the one that you sent that I can not make out what it says. 12) We have bylaws in place that stipulate parking space, building height etc. What is the point of having these rules if they are not gong to be enforced. If we break these rules what next, traffic laws etc. On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:18 PM <Garett.Stevenson&kitchener.ca> wrote: Hello, understand that some people had trouble receiving my email last week, so I am resending to everyone on the list. Please accept my apologies if you are receiving this a second time. Thanks, 2-270 DSD -20-002 ApprVx T" CEIVEfj- :A OP1 51051F/G-S & ZC1 51015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form T 1, yv u ro:, a t -Le.-- .1 - n g t h e N e Lgh b o o ro 00 d I f) I c) r rl)a t [0 ri M Ming- please prf5vj(j(- y,:)tjr feedback !� this carnment sheet. P;eElSe return (0y inail. email or rax) to thE� Addre5s Hsted Ir- the baCk of this form by February 28, 20i7. C4- Think . ing about the origin -al and rp.vi,Pd dvveloprnent concepli,s, whirh changes do you like,,? 4n— ,ok Thinking aboijt the original and revised development concepts, nrefo,-? \,Vtl!Ch changes do YOU nol. 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? _C c,�t �&,_e 4 ro 4-1 /1, New commercial uses are proposed for the main floix o " f e -'fa^irig Freclerick Street?, Do you have any comments on the requested Usc-5? C- o—I-q2f__IS c6AIpn 4. What. do you think it is the single most irriportant issue for' Planning; F,3t U staff 8 n6l to consider for thcsC applications? V) C) P 1. 5 i 0 5./9,0 S & Z C, -L 5/ C 2-271 OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Second Neighbourhood Information Meetin DSD -20-(102 ppendi. C't Vic:- �)`y3, Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by December 31, 2018. 1. Thinking about the latest revised development concept presented today, which changes do you like? 2. Thinking about the latest revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? r zi L27L ca /0 J 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? I r l :cLrK n' �►�� �Yl l iliit Ci Vi ii 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? LL�Lk ` k ; Your Address:' f -P -� -j OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS )L`ii.rrL7 7 /:CG��lt HCl: Cra'7V Vonf f Ill Cir C'rff"J GLS 4V Ve J L r Page 1/2 2-272 OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Second Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by December 31, 2018. 1. Thinking about the latest revised development concept presented today, which changes do you 2: Thinking abopt the latest revised development +7d r which ch ages do you not prefer? 3- What additional chap -es cj�o` yo Li suggest for the developmer I Itri r ,' - l XA 4. What do you think it is the single most Important lure I consider for these aDDlications? Your Address: �4 OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS i :ul 1-9 r ez Staff grid Council to �f- n Page 112 � Jj s -• f ii 2-273 4111wliv.\I-R OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Second Neiqhbourhood Information Meetin D-20-002 Appen4ix �" �_ — Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by December 31, 2018. 1. Thinking about the latest revised development concept presented. today, which changes do you like? 11 0 Ger . on ;W-� �e_ ,, C r cv? aeil lo,/ -,--- 2. o,/-,--- 2. Thinking about the latest revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? _ C90tLd"c���� .. /kc�Ud-ed 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? CA ns� 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? I'A. �O rkf- ' t , 1) L' j .ems +' j U -e — C � ' Your Address: 415 &2 c N r �-A ` OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 2-274 OcENED j DEC 17 7W D[C '<RVae:Ss DEP1, ur�Y g�u�rt;s WTI4h1fa 4iVhSti n OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015F/GS�''�" 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Second Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by December 31, 2018. I .. Thinking about the latest revised development concept presented today, which changes do you like? 4�2a GO Cj VICE �. Thinking about the latest revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? C �vA( � tt I VOaZ-V'l-OL(/ A. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? Your Address: I ^ 1C1 a01 OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 2-275 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" OP15105/F/GS & ZC151015/FAGS 859 & 887 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Second Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Th,ark you for attendirr= ti -a Ndonbaurha:�J Inforinrition ronf:trr .. g. f'It-:�'i5e Furl; i;li� y'..irr fFF,4bcrk, usl'1,-, this i:C+R'ment shect return iby nin- i':, ur'Y l Of f6fxj lb Uit li-sled trr_ the ticr(* of this form b,. December 3-1, 2018. 1. Thinkint = )? -vr e I-_�_-.t Y --er e-,�e;rr�1 pr-- , h f`In'1;,l's Cj4 you tit .,- e'.,-, :# �1 , �i nt d��a�ce�l F=r�_e�rt�� tcl��,,. which c � - I �' '—' Y- —i 11I if _�'i� i-'-`•. `'' ` F I —la, �i-1 L4 r5 -IP JI 'L - 2, I hiin .ir,g :jrll il't3 W]I { L ri"vi! IQ I I I I e I I 1 {."ifl::ef)',s, -6v i i u ! ra n r w do!/CLI riot o r efer? I h I r 3. Wha,at dltiGrci ehanEns cfcyou suggestfos the d]evd:I Prnerl' prepnsal'? k What to ,.cli thick It Is torr:: sitrtglu r? os' Irr1rjortivil f;lr P.Lirtr i, :=nd Gomil to cionsicer for the -so oPpl1/Co'_ira:`I's 1 - f �F` I : ,�. 1 [ ��` ' L_ �'I. I. � ' � I ' ' 1s�� - ti.Y 1 ��-1T"•✓ �•'i•r � yl t i.5 ^� ,7T £ =i. 2-276 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" IPIS �'4 A` � ,� �- � I L,.�..,-.�4� �^:�7 �•'� I3 L• -L" \ JUA U I : b _ �drlie„' .fir L Ljo � _ ' � t �_i _�:_,;- -� k/ �• � . �._ � ��� --1. - rl_a.4 �'.�- �t ., `.t.� I. ;_.!.' �.:�k � t.a .a? � '-�' f. ' I til Ij 2-277 _ DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" 6P15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Second Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form _ Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by december 31, 2018. 1. Thi nking about the latest revised deveIOP rnerrl concept presented today, which Changes do you like? 2. Thinking about the latest revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? I 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? r 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? M1 Your Address; OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 2-27 DSD -2o 2 Appendix "G" ?�5fd We are not in favour of increasing the development zoning along Fredrick Street. At R8, it is currently sufficient for suitable development in this neighbourhood. This new development is propused for two of the several mediuria density (RS) ptnperttes along Fredrick Street, and also encroaches into the R3 low density residential area proposing to convert att existing residential lot along Avon Rd. the proposal encircles two 2 1,12 storey triplexes on. von Rd. which were developed on a severed portion of the rear of the corner property, developed by this sasne developer_ The remaining portion of the corixer lot appears to be occupied by ahouse which has been converted into 3 or 4 apartments. It has been ,poorly maintained and slummy for 1nany gears, with car tires, RSV campers, f-Lre pits and nthcr debris littering the site. We believe it is al So Managed and rented by this developer. 1s this part of the never urban developer strategy, buy up properties, let them run down, and thea request additional densiiy, otherwise we live 'with the eyesore or move out? As a side u0te, this same dcvefuper purchased 8261 Fredrick St., a single de-tached house OIL, a corrner lot,wNch they rented for a. couple cif years. It was then let to sit vacant and deteriorating while plans where devcloped for 8 townhouses. two of which u711 be duplexed7 the rmaxuntrrn density permitted on this srt AI Rei site. Since obtaining a demolition permit, they cut down all the beautiful dnatttres trees, and they are yet to begin demolition or construction. Now, more than two (2) years later, the vacant building still sits as ars eyesore, and leas siguif3cantly reduced the quality oftbce neighbourhood and environT'i7erit- .At Arc aT-redricic, now that adjacect properties have been acquired, the developer wishes C)fl"iciW Plan amendment and 2xm a chan ges. in effect, they are requesting the rnaxirnurn residential density Permitted by zonlzig, changing R 8 and 16, to 119. This would be necessary to remove height resirictious, reduce setbacks and reduce parking requirements. Height restrictions are they, only de#ermin d by floor space ratio (rnax 4); anal in ti's case, the twelve story building with surface and undergra and Parking, produces a FSR of 2.2. Theoretically, if the zone change were granted, and the developer created More underground parking, they cculd return with a prciposa l including an even taller building. As mentioned, Fredrick. Sit has several other R8 properties, sorme currently i�j single detached residential dwellings, the Alzhc mer Society in a conveTted house, and Surry Place - with two 6 storey apartments, surface said lmdesrgaound parking and the original Sorry House. The 6 Storey Surry Place development is fitted well vAth adequate green space, parking and mg eights suitable to the neighbourhood. With the exception of the run down properties currently requesting amendments, the other properties are well kept. The current designation of medium rise R8 for a portion of this proposal would permit an 8 storey building. The Avon Street residential lot would require both Official Plan 2-279 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" amendment and zone change to be included. It could be questioned why not acquire the next house on Avon Road, right up to the non-existent walkway block leading to the park? As the Official Plan outlines, appropriate development preserving the eurrent R8 along Fredrick is more than adequate for this site. Changing it, would set dangerous precedents for the other R8 properties to be developed in the :Future. We do not favour granting this increased density. If the Avon Rd property is increased from R3 to R8, this would already be an extreme change. We recognise the city`s desire for intensification, however this can still be achieved following the Official Plan which was only recently amended and accepted. A good example may be the 8 storey apartment at Ottawa and Lackner Blvd. We do not want to see 12 storey high-rise blocks urging Fredrick Street, ind trust this is not e.ity staff motivated. The benefit of a development here, as mentioned, will hopefully alleviate the slummy conditions at the Avon/Fredrick comer which appear to have avoided bylaw authorities. And if a maximum ,height of 8 storeys is maintained, this could fit without dwarfing others in the neighbourhood. Regarding the included prelirninary site ,plan, it appears the landscaped areas are at the minimum, and there are D0011 -site provisions for children. Possibly a ,pedestrian ccnnection could be developed to encourage access to the virtually unused and inaccessible Rosemount Parr at the rear of Rosemount School, Also, an additional access to Fredrick street along the south side of the proposed building could be beneFicial_ With respect to traffic, the Avon/ Fredrick intersection will be negatively impacted by Vehicular tm i_ng, as Fredrick Street is often a continuous flow. If this development proceeds it shoLdd do so respectutg the current official plan and zoning as much as possible. Vire do not support R4 zoning at this location. We hope that other neighbours will have adequate skills in expressing themselves, however unfortunately, given the timing of this summer submission, many will undoubtedly not respond, or just accept the inevitable. Sincerely, 58 Turner Avenue, Kitchener (resident here for over 25 years). July 27, 2015 July 27,2015 2-280 December 3, 2018 Via E-mail (garett.stevenson@kitchener.ca) Garett Stevenson Community Services Department City of Kitchener City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Stevenson: Re: 859 & 867 Frederick Street and 39 Avon Road Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zoning Change Application ZC15/01/F/GS DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" COWLING WLG John S. Doherty Direct +1 519 575 7518 Direct Fax +1 519 571 5018 john.doherty@gowlingwlg.com File no. K0554183 We represent in opposition to Official Plan Amendment Application OP/15/05/F/GS (the "Proposed OPA") and Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS (the "Proposed ZCA°). As noted in our previous letters dated August 13, 2015, and March 30, 2017 we confirm our continued opposition to the application for the reasons previously noted, and the comments at the meeting of November 21, 2018 relating to the traffic, height and density being inappropriate for the location. We would ask that you advise us regarding the timing of any further informal meetings, staff reports and the date for the Council or Committee meeting. Yours very truly, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP /hnoherty JSD:hp Client EDC_LAVV\ 1931979\1 Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP T +1 519 576 6910 Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP Is a member of Gowling WLG, an International lawfirm Suite 1020, 50 Queen Street North F +1 519 576 6030 which consists of independent and autonomous entities providing services around PO Box 2248 Kitchener ON N2H 6M2 Canada gowlingwlg.com the world. Our structure is explained In more detail at gawlingw1g.com/legal. 2-281 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" I OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road [Second Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by December 31, 2018. 1. Thinking about the latest revised development concept presented today, which changes do you li ? �f i 2. Thinking about the latest revised development concepts, which changes do Yow not prefer? Lows qr' `� a Zs Gv8 a of GYD!'S / Yv� iT �' ig yup �Ilalz <7A/a AeW1-Q1&W1�11 7-/, 74' ) 1T l E 4" If *1 o�f�* G' 0&*1 044; a u a el.� ue out c r "Cs, B. What addhtonal changes do you suggest for the dev loprnierrt proposal? ` r 7f� eG v fesr +Pt /'C' r�r ec 47 , 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to donsider for, ths�licat-o ns? l B u 90;I n Your Address: C zcil�/F/ c .• G G o vr� 1 67 y/ oh Page 11' A 2-282 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" i ,fN .� J!'ir O P 15105/F/G & ZC15/0151F/GS 850 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Second Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the NeighbourhoM lrlformMion Meetin.� Plana: pruvido your feedback using thin comment, sheet. Please, return (by mail. ernail or tax) to thy': nddress listed on the back of this form by December al, 2018- 1- ThiriNng about Me latest rovised developmc:nt concept pre entad today. which chanj;r. s du you I�kG? a- thinking about the latest re.isfid dpveloprrrc:nt concepts. which chane , do }'cu not prefer IJ•l�" �vG0 Gf � 111Vi-.-,5 WWW �/—� W-6 3_ '<<hut a=itional chan&scs do j)ou sur'Ap.st for Ihc: dumlopment proposal? Ir POWA/�... 1. Wnat dU you think it is tt,Y Sirrt.,lc: most Tfflportarit icSuo for Planninp staff ;and Council to consir ¢r for thr sr; applicaliollS? / 174wc �Rv _A( locer-ror- '77f Aw " Po ze-17en Your Addru F;: Of' & ZC15:'0l1%el testi i'a�cvc 1,12 2-283 �.1� [ C.t I ?� OP151051FIGS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Second Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by December 31, 2018. ". Thinking about the latest revised development concept presented today, which changes do you like? Nothing. 2. Thinking about the latest revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? Even less parking than before. And now, several access doors on Avon Rd. This means greater potential for cars parking on Avon Rd than ever before. 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? Parking spaces per unit must be increased to meet the current by-law. This is readily obtainable by decreasing the units, by decreasing the building's height. 4. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? Vehicles: parking spaces and congestion on Avon Rd. Your Address: 106 Avon Rd. OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 2-284 <—Ii d( l li it l� OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS 859 & 867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road Neighbourhood Information Meeting Comment Form Thank you for attending the Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Please provide your feedback using this comment sheet. Please return (by mail, email or fax) to the address listed on the back of this form by February 28, 2017. 1. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you like? None of them. 2. Thinking about the original and revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? Still same monsterous height. Less parking per unit then ever. Still does not address potential traffic issues. Need to consult with that department and present. 3. What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? Really, really need to stick with the current zoning by-law. There for a good reason. They are only after money money money. Greed is zero excuse to break the current by-law. 4. New commercial uses are proposed for the main floor of the building (facing Frederick Street). Do you have any comments on the requested commercial land uses? Again, traffic and vehicles are THE major concern. 5. What do you think it is the single most important issue for Planning staff and Council to consider for these applications? Weigh the needs of the people, the neighbourhood, its ambiance, the reason why we chose Rosemount. Same old statement. Have all you move into Rosemount, close to this behemoth. And stay. See how you like it, though you won't have the'before' neighbourhood knowledge or lifestyle. OP15/05/F/GS & ZC15/015/F/GS Page 1/2 2-285 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 8:23 AM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: 859 &867 Frederick st Good morning Garrett Apologies for the late response but I was unable to fill comment form online. Thanks for the meeting and some understanding that the community here is dealing with issues impacting our homes and lives. Emotions are understandable. In future it would provide clarity to speak directly to developers. For example their suggestion was for professional space. As opposed to commercial space indicated on concept. Big difference. Have developers ever considered a retirement village such as Livingstone Estates on Midland Drive? Potential good ROI and well suited to the area and community integration. Any Green initiatives such as solar, grey water capture? Thanks for taking the time to read my email. 237 Rosemount Dr 2-286 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 1:09 PM To: Garett Stevenson; Scott Davey Cc: Subject: 859/867 Frederick Street & 39 Avon Road NIM Comment Form Attachments: DSD_PLAN_Frederick--Avon-NIM-2-Comment-Sheet.pdf Please Hind attached the NIM comment form. I have provided the comments below in this email to have more space to write. 1) Thinking about the latest revised development concept presented today, which changes do you like? I like that a traffic pickup/dropoff area has been included on the property to minimize disruption to the traffic on Frederick Street. 2) Thinking about the latest revised development concepts, which changes do you not prefer? I find that despite the pickup/dropoff area included on the property, the latest concept does nothing to address the traffic and parking concerns on the surrounding roads. The developers seem to be relentlessly persuing increased density without any concern for its impact on the existing community and neighouring homeowners. In a space designed to accommodate several single family homes, the developers are attempting to cram hundreds of units, people and vehicles. The surrounding roads do not have the ability to accommodate the extra traffic and parking requirements this will require, especially in a neighbourhood that the city has already acknowledged has a problem in this regard. The developers have heard the community's opposition and complaints in this regard; however, they've done nothing to attempt to address it. The addition of street4evel and street -facing townhomes on Avon Road will lead to an increased use of street parking along Avon Road, which will lead to a level of congestion that will make the road nearly impassable to vehicles (including emergency vehicles and first responders) and create a serious risk of injury/death for children and cyclists who use that road regularly today. I very strongly oppose allowing the building to be 2 extra floors above the current maximum allowed 8 stories. There is simply nothing that high in this neighbourhood today and it would impair the quiet, established character of the neighbourhood. The building is not within walking distance of schools, grocery stores, medical facilities, etc. so it makes no sense to increase density in this location. Those developers are known in the neighbourhood as they currently own/operate 2 fourplex rental buildings adjoining the proposed development site. The community is perpertually at odds with the developers today as they do not maintain those properties... they do not shovel snow on the sidewalks during the winter, or mow the lawns/boulevards during the summer and there is always garbage strewn over the boulevard/road regardless of the garbage pickup day. The developers claim it's not their responsibility to manage those elements and that it's up to their renters. With their clear distain for the community and disregard for our neighbourhood, we fear the impact to the community if they are allowed to build/manage more than 25 times more units on that same road. The traffic assessments that have been conducted in the neighbourhood omitted one of the most critical roads and in -progress developments. The school construction on Burlington Drive, which is an adjoining property to the proposed development, will bring 18-20 school busses into the neighbourhood twice per day. The route of 2-287 the busses has not yet been determined, as many of the students will be bussed in P6fah4Q, R 6MtMya?6bnd the region. There is a possibility that the 18-20 busses could be coming down Frederick and Avon onto Burlington Drive. It's the most direct route from Victoria Street. At the end of the last NIM, the developers stood in the middle of the room and argued with the community. They claimed that they do not yet know whether they are building rental or condo units and claimed that they have not yet considered the costs they could charge for the units. They insisted the unclean state of their current fourplexes in the neighbourhood was not their fault and they shouldn't be held accountable for it since they do not live in the region. They proceeded to tell us that we were jealous of their proposed building and that we'd all be living in it within a year. Furthermore, when asked what they would do if their proposal was rejected, they proudly stated that instead of building a beautiful 10 -storey structure they would build the ugliest 8 -storey eyesore they could design. To stand in a room with the community and to treat with with such disrespect and pompass disdain is completely unacceptable and this is not the type of business we want/need in our neighbourdhood, city or region. 3) What additional changes do you suggest for the development proposal? I would like to see this proposal abide by all existing bylaws and rules... no exceptions allowed. The building should be at most 8 stories tall and there should be no exceptions for increased density or reduced parking spots. I would also like them to consider less above -ground parking and add an extra underground floor for parking below the building. Use the extra above -ground space for a parkette perhaps. 4) What do you think is the single most important issue for planning staff and council to consider for these applications? The strong, persistent, and vocal opposition of the entire neighbourhood! We are being very clear about protecting the character of our neighbourhood against out-of-town developers coming to cash in on a project at the, cost of our community. NO! The city needs to promote smart developments in the right places, but it must also protect its existing neighbourhoods against predator developers who menace them. This neighbourhood has spoken loud and clear against having a massive development from an absentee landlord who already has a very poor reputation in the neighbourhood. If anything, the single most important consideration is harmony in the community. 1) I feel the information to be presented in a clear and understandable manner. 4 - yup it was pretty good. 2) I feel that my questions and concerns were heard by City staff. 2 - I feel overall that the developers are being heard more than the neighbourhood. The fact that the city omitted any consideration of the approved use of 80 Burlington Drive into this NIM and proposal review concerns me greatly. The school development at 80 Burlington Drive is something we've brought up at every opportunity since the first NIM. 3) I found the meeting location and time convenient. 5, yup it was great. 4) How did you find out about the NIM? For this second NIM, snail mail and email from the city. For this first NIM, community member went door to door dropping off flyers in neighbourhood mailboxes. 5) Do you have any other comments regarding this NIM? 2-288 Yes, please listen to the community! Don't let a predator developer ruin our tight-kQftW JZA"iA Mdanger the harmony of our neighbourhood so he can profit off the city's back. This type of developer is not someone we want building the future of our city. Kind regards, 2-289 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" Garett Stevenson From: Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 12:53 PM To: Garett Stevenson Cc: Scott Davey Subject: Planning Comments for 859 & 867 Frederick St & 39 Avon Rd (OP15/05/F/GS & ZC 15/015/F/G S) Attachments: DSD_PLAN_Frederick--Avon-NIM-2-Comment-Sheet.pdf Please see below for my comments from the NIM for the above proposed planning and zone changes. I have included the original comment sheet for reference. 1: the changes i liked were mainly to the aesthetic qualities of the building. The step down approach and the town house frontage was a nice touch. the landscape buffer and line of sight changes were also appreciated 2: Based on what i have seen in the plan they are still asking for a Zone Change to 10 Stories in a zone that is limited to 8. This is the biggest problem with the plan. this neighbourhood is not built for high rise building nor should it be gentrified. we are too far from the downtown core and this building would the the only 10 story building in this area. they are also asking for a reduction in parking per unit. this makes sense in an area serviced by public transit (Ion and BRT). we have 1 BRT route in our area and the other routes servicing this neighbourhood are limited to say the least. the routes stop running early on weekends and do not ran late during the week. they have also not taken in to account the parking related issues this will cause. we have parking issues in our area already (as noted in the meeting by all members of the Kitchener staff). this will only add to the parking woes in our neighbourhood. there is also a new school being built in the area that was not on the plan nor was it taken in to account as the staff at the meeting were unaware of it's existence. based on the land use changes already approved (80 Burlington dr) i believe this application should be cancelled/rejected as the use of this area has changed before this builders application has been approved. First in First Out. 3:1 would like to see the builder stay within the already existing rules for the Zoning. i would also like to see this builder take care of his existing properties before being allowed to apply for more "concessions" from the city or the neighbourhood. his current properties are a mess. on any given garbage day there are cans, blue bins and garbage strewed around the road and the boulevard. the snow clearing for these properties is non existent. please review all by-law/ping-street/Call Center reports against these properties before making any decisions regarding this application. 4: i cant narrow this down to any one single thing other than Listen to your constituents. These builders/landlords are not the type of people we want running properties in our neighbourhood. It is questionable whether they should be allowed to be landlords in our region at all. i had the unfortunate experience of speaking directly with them during the meeting and i will paraphrase the conversation we had. i was basically told that everyone in this neighbourhood will be living in his buildings when their knees and hips are gone. i was told that he doesn't live in the area and cannot always be available to look after his properties and it is the responsibility of his tenants to look after the place. he serves them notice all the time and nothing ever gets done. he blames the system for his problems. i was also told he doesn't know if it will be a rental or condo. isn't this one of the things reviewed as part of a land use application? 2-290 Last but not least, i was told if he didn't get his way (10 stories and fewer parking q €Os��Wftddnhixiiff"a short, fat and ugly building just to spite us. I ask, is this they type of person we (the royal we) want in our neighbourhood? is this what the city wants representing real estate on their behalf? i don't believe the city in the business of supporting slums. for the multiple choice questions i will answer below 1: 4 - Agree 2: 2 - Disagree 3: 4 - Agree 4: Had a flyer dropped in my mailbox 5: your constituents and tax payers have spoken. no one wants this development in its current state and no one wants to reward this slum lord. please listen to those paying taxes here. 63 Burlington Dr Kitchener ON N2B 1 T3 12/31/2018 All information regarding conversations with the developer can be corroborated by my wife Renee Simonot. Thank you. 2-291 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" 53 Avon Rd., Kitchener ON N2B 1T7 December 31, 2018 Re: Frederick/Avon Proposed Development Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/05/F/GS Zone Change Application ZC15/015/F/GS Hello Garrett: Here are my concerns. 1) We need to see an artist view of the parking area head on, on Avon Rd (currently 39 Avon Rd.) What will this look like in regards to vegetation etc. 2) 1 would like when they put in trees for landscaping that the developer puts in somewhat mature trees and plants and not saplings. 2A) Is there anyway that the developer could be forced to maintain the vegetation such a watering and trimming until the plants take hold. It would be a real waste if this is not done, as well as being an eye score. 3) 1 am still concerned about the height of the building. Ten stories instead of eight. The current zoning allows for 8 stories why should we break this rule that is in place? If we can break that law can I then ask for 2 days to shovel my walk rather than the 1 day that is currently in the bylaw? 4) 1 do not believe that the parking should be cut down to 1.2 spots per unit from the required 1.5. As discussed at the 2nd neighbourhood information meeting think we can say that all those units that will have entrances on Avon Rd will be parking on Avon Rd rather than going through the building to the parking lot behind the units. If you have enough parking at the apartment this will be one less excuse that they can use. Also we know what the parking is like on Avon Rd on Sunday, Wednesday and Fridays with the church and the mosque parking there. Also we currently have the people living at 31 & 35 Avon Rd. parking on the street even though there is enough, of the required amount of parking required by the zoning laws. This is also the same developer that owns these two units. So I don't see things changing in this regard unless the city takes other steps to correct this parking problem. 2-292 DSD -20-002 Appendix "G" 5) Can we find out what kind of units these are going to be? Are they affordable units, just regular apartments or condos or some combination of all of them. 6) Under the zoning regulations the properties are zoned for an 8 story building. That maybe legal but it does not fit in the neighbourhood as most of the housing in the area is 3 stories or less. One can argue that Surrey Place is 6 stories and that the one unit is way back on the property and the other one is not that noticeable. However if this building goes ahead it will be right on the corner and be a major eye score. I don't think it should be allowed to be this high and should stick more in line with the housing in the immediate area. I guess when people come to my house I just have to tell them to turn at the monstrosity at the corner. 7) 1 guess I will become a prisoner in my own house now as everyone will be able to look at me and my family and everything we are doing in our backyard from their apartments. 8) Talking to my neighbour that moved in down the road recently had they have known that this building was going in they would never have moved here. They came from Toronto hoping to get away from all the high-rises. What a disappointment for them. 9) 1 believe the city is not thinking things through properly. Bigger is not always better. We used to have a coat of arms that had a beaver on it because they were so prevalent and it was a sign of ingenuity and hard work. Now we have replaced the beaver with a clock tower that we took down from the city hall because it was too small. So now we talk about green space but we have to artificially create it because with all our for thought we don't have any anymore. We create infrastructure that we can't afford now or in the future. Sure we increase the tax base for now but in 20 years when we need to do the repairs we don't have the money and have to increase taxes. The studies say the utilities can handle this apartment complex but it will put more stress on the infrastructure that we will probably have to replace earlier than was planned on. Big is not always better. cc: Scott Davey Ward 1 Councillor 2-293 DSD-20-002 Appendix "H" .o f IW rt ry z • s y F" '�'� G � L f r L E A O � O � l • Ir +, 4P 0 N r 1 i R"s L 0 ► 0 s ti r O (Yj _ �`• 0 0 U0 rl- L r � (D Y' co 2-294 DSD-20-002 Appendix "H" .o f IW i IC rt ry z f r L /�✓ .. yt + _ Q s' A O " 0 ► MU��,« L 1 _ a*r 1 i 0 ► 0 4-LNI O U • Q? L r � (D Y' co LIM 2-295 DSD-20-002 Appendix "H" IW rt ry z f r L CL A O O w" 0 r • U .� _ a*r 1 i 0 ► 0 °- M LNI +-j (J O 0Y 0 r -! • Q? L 0 U- Y'rl- IL co 2-296 DSD-20-002 Appendix "H" IW rt ry -z • s y F" '�'� G � L f r L F 0' O ■ 0r ro L '« _ a*r 1 i 0 ► V 0 O U • Q? L 0 U- Y'rl- IL co 2-297 DSD -20-002 Appendix "H" .o f IW Eo rt ry z • � y F" �' G � L f r L F- °►. " 0� s ► R3 E H f 1 L r 4-J L a `f C) a� i a- 4} k 14'r' t IL c0 2-298 DSD-20-002 Appendix "H" .o f IW rt ry z • � y F" �' G � L f r L a) Eo •' N r � C1 ► R3 E � Ql i� 1 i (D 0 ► 0LNI 1 r ° U r -! • Q? L Y'rl- IL co 2-299 DSD-20-002 Appendix "H" .o f IW rt ry z • s y F" '�'� G � L f r L F-0 •,i 0 n A � r _ a*r 1 i 0 ► 0 4- LNI 0 U • Q? L 0 U- Y'rl- IL co 2-300 DSD-20-002 Appendix "H" .o f IW rt ry z • s y F" '�'� G � L f r L a� Q 0 n r VJ A _ a*r 1 i ► 0LNI 0 U r -! • Q? L 0 U- 0 rl- r � (D Y' co 2-301