Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2021-11-08Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Agenda Monday, November 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Electronic Meeting Due to COVID-19 and recommendations by Waterloo Region Public Health to exercise physical distancing, City Hall is open for select services. Members of the public are invited to participate in this meeting electronically by accessing the meeting live -stream video at kitchener.ca/watchnow. While in-person delegation requests are not feasible at this time, members of the public are invited to submit written comments or participate electronically in the meeting by contacting delegation@kitchener.ca. Please refer to the delegations section on the agenda below for registration deadlines. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994. Chair: Councillor P. Singh Vice -Chair: Councillor S. Marsh Pages 1. Commencement 2. Consent Items The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as under this section. 2.1. None. 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. Delegates must register by 5:00 p.m. on November 8, 2021, in order to participate electronically. 3.1. Public Hearing report DSD -2021-168 listed as Item 4.1 3.1.a. Kristen Barisdale, GSP Group 3.2. Public Hearing report DSD -2021-169 listed as item 4.2 3.2.a. Kristen Barisdale, GSP Group 4. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act. If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City of Kitchener before the proposed applications are considered, the person or public body may not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal. 4.1. DSD -2021-168 - Zoning By-law Amendment 45 m 3 ZBA/21/005/H/CD - 210 Heritage Drive - Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. (Staff will provide a 10 minute presentation on this matter) 4.2. DSD -2021-169 - Zoning By-law Amendment 45 m 75 ZBA20/010/V/AP - 117 & 133 Vanier Drive - 2385235 Ontario Ltd. (Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter) 5. Information Items 5.1. None. 6. Adjournment Daniela Mange Committee Administrator Page 2 of 157 l Staff Rep ort K� R Development Services Department www. kitchener ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: November 8, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: Bustamante, Rosa - Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Dumart, Craig — Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7073 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1 DATE OF REPORT: October 6, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-168 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/21/005/H/CD 210 Heritage Drive Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/005/H/CD for Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law", and "Map No. 1", attached to Report DSD -2021-168 as Appendix "A"; and That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA/21/005/H/CD. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to provide a planning recommendation to approve the Zoning By- law Amendment application for the subject property located at 210 Heritage Drive. Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice letter to owners of property within 120m of the subject site; o installation of notice signage on the property; o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; o a Neighbourhood Information Meeting (June 24, 2021); o small group site walks of the subject lands (August 2021): o notice letter advising of the public meeting was circulated to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject site, those who responded to the preliminary circulation; and, o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on October 15, 2021. This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 3 of 157 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the subject property located at 210 Heritage Drive is requesting a Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the subject property from Residential Three Zone R-3 (Zoning By-law 85-1) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone RES -5 (Zoning By-law 2019-051) with a Site Specific Provision to further regulate the location of visitor parking, lot width, increased floor space ratio and an increased minimum visual barrier height. A Site Specific Provision Map is also proposed to restrict any development of buildings, structures, and fences within the existing mature tree area on the property. BACKGROUND Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. has made an application to the City of Kitchener for a Zoning By-law Amendment proposing to change the zoning of the subject lands at 210 Heritage Drive to permit the lands to be developed with multiple residential buildings, in the form of two stacked townhouse blocks with 26 units in total. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. No Official Plan amendment is required or requested. Existing zoning permissions include: • Residential Three Zone (R-3): Permits primarily single detached and duplex dwellings and detached additional dwelling units. The subject lands are located on the east side of Heritage Drive, generally west of Lackner Boulevard and south of Victoria Street North (Figure 1). The property is generally square in shape with an irregular frontage along Heritage Drive approximately 10.449 metres in width. The subject site is approximately 63 metres wide, approximately 64 metres deep with an overall area of 0.40 hectares (0.99 acres). The site is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling and detached garage and is surrounded by existing low-rise residential uses including single detached dwellings, semi- detached dwellings, and multiple dwelling buildings. Figure 1 - Location Map: 210 Heritage Drive Page 4 of 157 �.. (. �.. a„” SUBJECT AREA Mp, 4.� ryy Figure 1 - Location Map: 210 Heritage Drive Page 4 of 157 REPORT: The applicant is proposing to change the zoning of the subject lands at 210 Heritage Drive to permit the development of two multiple dwelling buildings, including two stacked townhouse blocks, each building 3 storeys in height with a surface parking lot. The original development concept included two multiple buildings with 32 residential units and 43 surface parking spaces with a proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75. The original concept proposed to remove most of the trees on site. Both buildings were to be constructed at 11.5 metres in height, situated across form each another, directly overlooking onto adjacent residential properties located on Muskoka Court. Through the application process, staff have worked with the applicant to amend the proposed design to respond to initial comments with respect to achieving a development with reduced building heights, reduced massing, and minimal overlook, and a built form that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood while retaining as many trees as possible on the site. The revisions made by the applicant are included in Figure 2(below), the revised development concept and key changes are included in Table 1 (below). Table 1. Development Concept Comparison Table Page 5 of 157 Original Development Concept (December 2020) Revised Development Concept (2021) Building Heights 11.5 metres 11.0 metres Floor Space Ratio 0.75 0.68 Number of Units 32 residential units 26 residential units On-site Parking 43 33 Proposed Tree Removals 78 of the 128 trees on site 43 of the 128 trees on site Page 5 of 157 a tDC, ° , f cop is II Ipgp� In '1 ,Y � ....,�a (� .. ,ar ., ,Y4 ,,,M'H wZPF 3W ✓I Mtt�u .'�mr � � � I^m�� rq� w 9 i btu ?k . a �u� w wnm " ' �. ... ... ......� "4�: fu A, la Jf P „ ,.. „ n,.... A k 4y'° iu �y .� �;.,, Figure 2. Concept Plan for the 26 -unit multiple dwelling development at 210 Heritage Drive. The proposed development concept includes two stacked townhouse blocks, each building 3 storeys in height with 26 units in total and surface parking lot containing 33 surface parking spaces. (Figure 2). The buildings are situated to have minimal overlook to adjacent residential properties and allow for the retention of a significant amount of the mature trees located on the existing property. Staff is supportive of the proposed development concept. Planning Analysis: Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a multiple dwelling development that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required Page 6 of 157 for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is consistent with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. The subject lands are in close proximity to transit and the subject lands directly abut trails and a park. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) Municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area. The proposed development represents intensification and will contribute towards achieving the City's intensification density targets. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. Planning staff is of the opinion that the development proposal conforms to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications (Appendix `C'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan: Urban Structure The subject lands are located within the `Community Areas' in the City's Urban Structure (Map 2). The planned function of Community Areas is to provide for residential uses as well as non-residential supporting uses intended to serve the immediate residential areas. Land Use Designation The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential and Open Space (Map 3) in the 2014 Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential land use designation permits a full range of low density housing types which may include single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, street townhouse dwellings, and low-rise multiple dwellings. The Low Rise Residential land use designation considers a Floor Space Ratio up to 0.75 and allows a maximum building height of 3 storeys or 11 metres. Page 7 of 157 Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested zoning conforms with Low Rise Residential land use designation and an Official Plan Amendment is not required. Transportation The Official Plan provides for an integrated transportation system which incorporates active transportation, allows for the movement of people and goods and promotes a vibrant, healthy community using land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a wide range of transportation choices viable. The Official Plan encourages the increased use of public transit, and endeavors to ensure that the maximum walking distance to a transit stop will not exceed 450 metres for residences, places of employment and community facilities. The Official Plan contains policies that ensures that transit -supportive redevelopment is within a comfortable walking distance of the transit stop. Planning staff notes that the subject site is approximately 200 metres from a transit stop located at the near intersection of Halifax Drive and Natchez Road that provides connections to the broader Waterloo Region transit system. The proposed development that is proximate to a transit corridor helps achieve this objective in the Official Plan. 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 2014 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 Official Plan and the City's Urban Design Manual. The orientation of the buildings, the increased minimum visual barrier height and retained trees on site will minimize impacts on adjacent residential properties. Housing The City's primary objective with respect to housing in the Official Plan is to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. 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. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment increases the range of dwelling units available in the city and the proposed development offers modern stacked townhouse units that reflect a high standard of urban design. The proposed development is a compatible low rise residential use that is appropriate for the neighbourhood. Policy Conclusion Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good planning. Page 8 of 157 Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are currently zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019-051 to change the zoning on the lands as follows (and further detailed and shown on Map No. 1): Area 1: From Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1 to Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision 184 in Zoning By-law 2019-051. Official Plan policies in section 4.C.1.8. indicate that where special zoning regulations are requested for residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the site specific zoning regulations will consider compatibility with existing built form; appropriate massing and setbacks that support and maintain streetscape and community character; appropriate buffering to mitigate adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy; avoidance of unacceptable adverse impacts by providing appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area. Staff offer the following comments with respect to the proposed Site Specific Provision (184) a) On-site visitor parking shall be permitted within the front yard. The purpose of this regulation is to allow for on-site visitor parking to be located within the front yard. Due to the irregular shape, frontage and orientation of the proposed buildings, the proposed visitor parking is located within the front yard. Landscaping is required to screen the parking to minimize any visual impacts from the street. b) That the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 0.68. The purpose of this regulation is to cap the Floor Space Ratio and ensure development does not exceed the density presented in the revised concept plan (Figure 2). Any floor space ratio above 0.75 would require an Official Plan Amendment. 0.68 is within the limit of the Low Rise Residential land use designation. c) That the minimum front yard lot width shall be 17.0 metres. The purpose of this regulation is to legalize the existing front yard lot width of the subject lands. 210 Heritage Drive is irregular in shape at the front of the property along Heritage Drive. The purpose of the lot width regulation is to ensure lots are wide enough for multiple dwelling developments. Staff are satisfied that the subject property is large enough to support the proposed multiple dwelling development. d) That the minimum and maximum height of the required visual barrier shall be 2.44 metres. The purpose of this regulation is to increase the required visual barrier height to reduce visual impacts of the proposed development and screen the surface parking lot from adjacent low rise residential properties. This is directly in response to community comments. e) No buildings, fences or structures (including decks, terraces, balconies or major storm water management structures and pipes) shall be located within Area 1 of Site Specific Provision Map 184. Page 9 of 157 The intent of this regulation is to ensure the development does not impact the existing mature treed area located on the subject lands identified in area 1. This regulation restricts any development or alterations within area 1 of the Site Specific Provision Map. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed RES -5 Zone together with Site Specific Provision 184 will provide for a form of development that is compatible with the neighbourhood, appropriately accommodates on-site parking needs, and represents good planning. Staff recommend that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Appendix "A". Department and Agency Comments: Preliminary circulation of the Zoning By-law amendment was undertaken on May 5, 2021 to applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency. Additional consideration will be addressed through the site development approval process. A consolidation of comments is attached as Appendix 'C' of this report. The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Zoning By-law amendment: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by: GSP Group, March 2021 • Urban Design Report Prepared by: GSP Group, March 2021 • Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Design Prepared by: GM Blue Plan, March 2021 • Transportation Impact, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Justification Study Prepared by: Salvini Consultation, December 2020 • Tree Management Plan Prepared by: GSP Group, October 2020 (Revised September 2021) Community Input & Staff Responses Staff received written responses from 28 residents with respect to the proposed development. These may be found in Appendix `E'. A Neighbourhood Information Meeting was held on June 24, 2021 and was attended by 64 residents. In addition, staff had follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public and led a small group site walks of the subject lands. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. What We Heard Staff Comment The buildings and parking lot The location of the buildings have been revised and are overlook into nearby homes and now situated to have minimal overlook into adjacent backyards results in decreased properties. In addition, the site specific regulation is privacy for homeowners. required for a 8ft high (2.44 metre) visual barrier (fence) to screen the surface parking lot from adjacent properties. The original development proposal included 32 residential Too many units are being proposed. units and the concept plan included removing most of the trees on site. The revised proposed concept includes 26 Page 10 of 157 Page 11 of 157 residential units and a majority of the trees on site are being retained and protected through Zoning regulations/Site Specific Map. The original proposal was for 11.5 metre high stacked townhouses. The applicant has decreased the building The proposed buildings are too tall heights to 11.0 which is permitted as of right in the RES -5 and do not fit into the zone. 11.0 metres is the same permitted height for single neighbourhood. detached and semi-detached dwellings. There are other multiple residential buildings across the street that are 3.5 storeys in height. A Site Specific Map will restrict the development of The removal of all of the trees will buildings, structures, fences and major storm water result in privacy issues. What management structures and pipes within the existing treed measures can be done to ensure all area on the subject lands. This Site Specific Provision will ensure the existing trees are not removed or impacted by of the trees are not removed? the development. Additional tree savings are now proposed with the revised development concept. Wildlife and birds will lose their The City imposes timing restrictions on tree removals so nesting grounds and habitat. What that they occur outside of the breeding bird season. Tree wildlife protection will be considered removals can occur when a nesting survey is done and no to protect nesting grounds? nests are found. Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands Are there services available for the and that they have no concerns with the proposed proposed development? Will the development. Storm Water Management will be reviewed development create more flooding through the site plan process. The City's storm water policy and storm water issues? requires the management of pre-existing to post development on the site. Additionally, the first 12.5 mm of rain needs to be retained on site. The proposed parking rate of 1.27 spaces per unit exceeds the minimum parking requirement of 1.1 spaces per unit in Not enough parking is being Zoning By-law 2019-051. In addition, adequate on-site provided onsite. visitor parking is being provided in accordance with the Zoning By-law. Halifax Drive and Heritage Drive have current volumes below, or on the low end on what is expected on a minor The increase in density will result in collector street. Based on Institute Transportation traffic congestion on local streets Engineers (ITE) trip generation estimates this site will add and at intersections. The approximately 15 new vehicle trips in the AM peak, and 18 development will result in a vehicle trips in the PM peak, or about 1 car every 3 to 4 significant increase in traffic minutes during afternoon and morning rush hour. Currently there are about 300 trips during rush hour on Heritage resulting in unsafe conditions for Drive, so the added vehicles from this site would be about drivers and children. a 5% increase. From a transportation perspective, this is a very small change. With a very high level of certainly we can Page 11 of 157 determine that this street can accommodate the additional trips projected to be accommodated by this development. Yb i Y ry +i1t , z urt / ��` �sr^.,,,..,� �'. � ! �'•/ij/�� j /ii urs-.•, ��'k�%%���r✓y� @ „� �� r,„r�. � f� � ir�rl/ r ���,� wra B[,O(W B ff •• AI'ld• 16W �� 7 �^' dfYC* 4 p" ��y 171N d¢1:4u 71 'i2 9 2i � // ! tl41 uz rwea waou.. �a.raur�zu u LY{NF^F. VkMiIIS:dMd FJfB 11 b" h"° �� % �� b4� Ye[w6tr.�aL, wFLLr ... '„” 77 �� i4 .. (ui moi I' gr i�l�/r�r n•�r t rx � „� m �� E)__ a� x «nim r inti 'i . �Yu i pix :a l7iziFA HA --� ; • � � �i"�:, � � voae` 7 ����//�%�� ilii 6 m '.,, r/�p 1 . '.�-- / Figure 3. Updated Tree Management Plan (Trees in green will be retained) Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the Zoning By-law amendment as amended through the review of the application. The revised concept plan has addressed community concerns by retaining trees, orienting the buildings to minimalize overlook impacts and will require an increased visual barrier to adjacent residential properties. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding the application posted to the City's website in the spring of 2021. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional courtesy notice of the public meeting was circulated to all property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and Page 12 of 157 Notice of the Public Meeting was posted in The Record on October 15, 2021 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix `B'). CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was originally circulated to property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands on May 5, 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 28 residents, which are included in Appendix `D'. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Regional Official Plan • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 • City of Kitchener Official Plan 2014 REVIEWED BY: Stevenson, Garett — Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services APPENDIXS: Appendix A — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Appendix B — Newspaper Notice Appendix C — Department and Agency Comments Appendix D — Public Comments Page 13 of 157 PROPOSED BY — LAW 2021 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended and By- law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-laws for the City of Kitchener — 210 Heritage Inc. — 210 Heritage Drive) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Number 226 of Appendix "A' to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by removing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto. 2. Schedule Number 226 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Schedule Number 226 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby further amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, and by zoning the Area 1 lands thereafter as Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision 184. 4. Schedule Number 226 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 5. Section 19 to By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (184) thereto as Page 14 of 157 follows: 184. Notwithstanding Sections 4.18, 5.3.3, and 7.3, Table 7- 6 of this By-law within the lands zoned RES -5 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Schedule Number 226 of Appendix "A", the following special regulations shall apply: a) On-site visitor parking shall be permitted within the front yard. b) Maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 0.68. c) Minimum front yard lot width shall be 17.0 metres. d) Minimum and maximum height of the required visual barrier shall be 2.44 metres. e) No buildings, fences or structures (including decks, terraces, balconies or major storm water management structures and pipes) shall be located within Area 1 shown on Figure 1 hereto. Figure 1: Site Specific Provision Map (184) PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of 12021. Mayor Clerk Page 15 of 157 z a z J U) LU 0 U m - Q of J = X LL N E o 0 Q N N W M Z Z 0 M Q W N W r Z ; Z O = 00 N w COO C7 W J > Q = ZLoO CO OW d fn m JCC) Qui�o� O 00WCN- Lu a z 9QLLI waU) ~ w co >- W 00� � Of > 10� U) m W W o Wow D rn p O= mowo�zOZ>H CO) QNQ W �♦-D> W Z O W O O Q N Lu ♦- Cn > W Q J Z W W H Q LU LU N z O z W z W, NN W 0 0 0 2 0 x z 0 U) W U) Z = LU w J J J J C)Off QQQQ�nDdw mcncn r z z z z z ,�W wwwo � co0C]0MC*4�W a0 aU5 Fn 77 W OOJ W W W W a Z N M (O 07 'h m CL CC CC CC m Z O CC O� 6. 1 w N ' Q tq ' LZZ 7n O 1 � � 111111'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVui�"'" r m 1 Z 1 1 1 ti LO O c) W co a_ O m C N 0 Q oo oo z 0 U Q� Q of J = X LL N E o 0 Q N N Q W ui = C7 P= CO ui ��C 9 W W z LU Z ,o L O 0 z Z CCM LL < w d' N Q Q La 0 WpXON oWo� z J co 4)1 j W Z N 9 H� si in - - S" S _�_ - - - Q z W O w C)LLJ 0- 2 z d d � w z iQ OUW� OY Q z Q W w a LU Q co � Mz 1- d W �+a } a V 0 m J LU ' g > uuuu Z U o °uu Z L LL ti LO O c) W co a_ z N Q� ON W ui C7 P= ui ��C 9 W W W = ,o L O 0 N ? U N d' O 0 ' J W 9 H� si in - - S" S _�_ - - - U) O d d � ti LO O c) W co a_ z W ui C7 Q ui ui 2 W = 0 0 N ? N N d' 0 ti LO O c) W co a_ NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood Heritage Drive i 't°, ° k, e" :1 26 U1 VitS t i ' � �k14.. ✓����fl AN�rY TQ k�a' ii. F i/ Time: Location:! «, Jo-v--iew the sta report, agenda, meeting details or to appear as a delegation, For more information application, ,"« your appeal rights, visit: plan ii .r ninaplications Craig Dumart, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x 7073 craig.dumart@ kitchener.ca The owner of the subject property located at 210 Heritage Drive is proposing a Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the subject property from Residential Three Zone R-3 (Zoning By-law 85-1) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone RES -5 (Zoning By-law 2019-051) with a Site Specific Provision to address the location of visitor parking, lot width, increased floor space ratio ,r d an increased minimum visual barrier height. A Site Specific Provision Map is also proposed to Craig Dumart From: Niall Melanson Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:35 AM To: 'Sarah Primmer - GM BluePlan' Cc: Angela Mick; Craig Dumart Subject: 210 Heritage Drive, ZBA21/005/H/CD - Engineering comments from servicing report Hello Sarah Thank you for the servicing report. KU has advised that the water supply/demand section is acceptable and Engineering has confirmed that the existing downstream sanitary infrastructure can carry the proposed increased sanitary flows. Please be advised that the sanitary minimum full flow velocity is 0.8m/s so the pipe slope or size will need to be increased when leaving the site. This can be addressed during detailed design. The stormwater design was not reviewed and will be so during detailed design for Site Plan Approval. Engineering has no concerns with the proposed ZBA. Thanks Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Engineering Technologist I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 Ext. 7133 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 niall.melanson@kitchener.ca Page 18 of 157 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form Address: 210 Heritage Drive Owner: Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. Application #: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/005/H/CD Comments Of: City of Kitchener — Environmental Planning Commenter's Name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7068 Date of Comments: September 23, 2021 1. Documents Reviewed: • Tree Management Plan (Dwg. L0.0), Tree Inventory Chart (Dwg. LOA), Tree Protection Details and Notes (Dwg. L0.2), Landscape Enhancement Plan (Dwg. L1.0) and Details (Dwg. L2.0). REV Mar 22/21. GSP Group. • 210 Heritage Drive, Kitchener, Zoning By -low AmendmentZBA21/005/H/CD, Response to Circulation Comments (Date: September 1, 2021) 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the supplementary information (as listed above) to support a Zoning By Law Amendment to rezone 210 Heritage Drive from R-3 to R-6 to permit the construction of a 26 -unit stacked townhouse development (multiple dwellings) with surface parking, noting the existing dwelling will be demolished and provide the following: • Although, the existing topography and mature trees on the site are challenging it appears the proposal (Tree Management Plan) has retained as many trees as possible. • It is recommended that a site-specific zoning provision be applied to protect the treed portion of the property. • A detailed review of tree protection fencing locations, site grading and servicing, and stormwater management will be undertaken at the time of the Site Plan Application. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • As per Section 8.C.2 — Urban Forests of the Official Plan ... o policy 8.C.2.16., the City requires the preparation and submission of a tree management plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available on the City's Website), as a condition of a development application. o policy 8.C.2.6., the City will incorporate existing and/or new trees into the streetscape or road rights-of-way and encourage new development or redevelopment to incorporate, protect and conserve existing healthy trees and woodlands in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in Section 13 (Landscape and Natural Features) of the Urban Design Manual (UDM) and the Development Manual. o Please see UDM Part C, Section 13 and www.kitchener.ca/treemanagement for detailed submission requirements A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 1 of 2 Page 19 of 157 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form 4. Anticipated Fees: • N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 2 of 2 Page 20 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Lenore Ross Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 10:12 AM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Carrie Musselman Subject: RE: Heritage Drive - Updated TMP Hi Craig, The revised TMP still shows some proposed work within the tree protection zone of city -owned trees ( retaining wall and swale along plan north property line). Work within tree protection zones of on-site, privately owned trees is also shown (storm retention outflow and likely retaining wall construction). The plan is sufficient for Parks clearance for the ZBA to proceed BUT the site plan and subordinate plans including the TMP will need to be revised to show no work within the tree protection zone. Lenore Lenore Ross MSc, MCIP, RPP Parks Planning and Development Project Manager Design & Development I Parks and Cemeteries I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext 7427 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Lenore. Ross@Kitchener.ca Discover nature in the city: www.kitchener.ca/parks A City for Everyone — Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community 0 mar e 0 0 0 From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 202112:23 PM To: Carrie Musselman <Carrie.Musselman@kitchener.ca>; Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Heritage Drive - Updated TMP Have the revised documents addressed your concerns ? Craig From: Kristen Barisdale <kbarisdale@gspgroup.ca> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 202110:51 AM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Cc: Carrie Musselman <Carrie.Musselman@kitchener.ca>; Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Heritage Drive - Updated TMP Hi all, There was some further tweaks to the TMP and the grading/servicing has now been finalized — see attached. Page 21 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Mike Seiling Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 12:21 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive) Attachments: department & agency letter - 210 Heritage Drive.pdf, ZBA21005HCD_MAP1.pdf Hi Craig, Hope you are well. Miss seeing you at CH. Building; no concerns with this development application. Mike From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 202112:19 PM To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division <DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood <theywood@grand river.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandrive r.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Jenn Simons <jsimons@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk <Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven. Ryder@ kitchener.ca>; UW - SA <Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive) Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchen er.ca ! yA W9 �n IW- 4"1 Page 22 of 157 City of Kitchener COMMENT FORM Address: 210 Heritage Drive Owner: Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. Application #: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/005/H/CD Comments Of: City of Kitchener — Environmental Planning Commenter's Name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7068/%i,/ Date of Comments: June 1, 2021 11. ��, 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discus f),� ❑x No meeting to be held ❑ 1 do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) i 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewedOjpart fa,,c plete application: • Sustainability Statement, 210 Heritage Drive, Kitche 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed Onta;i o. December 20, 2021. GSP Group. ?rt a Zoning By Law Amendment to rezone 210 Heritage Drive from R-3 to R-6, to p'er'rr "if" the%construction of a 26 -unit stacked townhouse development (multiple dwellings)., ith surface parOg, noting the existing dwelling will be demolished regarding Sustainability and Energy--;Conservatiorvah.d"provide the following: • As construction plans l�notbeenfitnalized, and an updated sustainability statement will need to be provided through„the,/s'i%e. plan process. • Based on my / j vi 'e. Sustainability Statement provided in support of the Zoning Bylaw Amendment is°accebtable.'�� 0 For Sifepla"'h'pplications, a Sustainability Study (as per the City's Terms of Reference) will be 'required„with an emphasis on demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the City (Planning), how 11 energy isbeing conserved or low energy generated. o Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is progressive, going forward all developments will need to include energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo) strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target. o It is recommended that the applicant explore programs or measures best suited to the site and development that go beyond the OBC to further energy conservation, generation, operation and would benefit future residents / tenants. o Program certification is not required but is encouraged. Programs (or components of) that could be explored are: A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 23 of 157 ■ Energy Star (20% / 15% more efficient then OBC) ■ R-2000 (50% more efficient then OBC), ■ Net Zero Ready (80% more efficient then OBC) ■ Net Zero (100% more efficient then OBC) ■ LEED (equivalency rating would be sufficient if not seeking certification) 4. Policies. Standards and Resources: Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.4. Development applications will be required,1' emonstrate to the satisfaction of the City, through the completion of a Sustainability Rep6rt/Che klist in accordance with the Complete Application Requirements Policies in Section. 17.E.10, that the proposal meets the sustainable development policies of the Plan/amend <ha��us"tainable development design standards are achieved. j • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development,%the City will encourage orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum/southerly exposures. Such K. EW orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applicationswill be/equired to demonstrate, iiia % o to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved gr low% energy generated. Such studies may include, but not limited to an Energy Conservation Effi - cy Study, a Feasibility Study for -. ,, Renewable or Alternative Energy Systems, Distrftff/MeatiFeasibility Study, and the completion vw ii , of a Sustainability Report/Checklist in accorda„nce with %theComplete Application Requirements ” i ,,, Policies in Section 17.E.10. /� � • The Sustainability Statement Terms,pf,,,Refe'rence'%;ean be found on the City's website under �� PlanningResources at ... ��, �/� o https://www.Kitchener.ca/en/,resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN Sustainability_ Statement Standard Terms of%Reference. df 5. Anticipated Fees/j0O!,,,;'% 00/ i/„/, Unknown ffrllll, i A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 24 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Michelle Drake Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 12:45 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Victoria Grohn Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive) Attachments: department & agency letter - 210 Heritage Drive.pdf; ZBA21005HCD_MAP1.pdf No heritage planning concerns. Michelle From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 202112:19 PM To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division <DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengeIly@grandrive r.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Jenn Simons <jsimons@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg. Reitzel @ kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk <Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven. Ryder@ kitchener.ca>; UW - SA <Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive) Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca fm — X-01 UM IFIKOX49-3110400 Page 25 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 1:06 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Jenn Simons Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive) Hey Craig, 210 Heritage Drive is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment. Thanks, Trevor Heywood I Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 202112:19 PM To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division <DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandrive r.ca>; Jenn Simons <jsimons@grand river.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg. Reitzel @ kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk <Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; UW - SA <Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive) Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchen er.ca Page 26 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Dave Seller Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 11:03 AM To: Craig Dumart Subject: ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT COMMENTS: 210 Heritage Drive City of Kitchener ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT COMMENTS Project Address: 210 Heritage Drive Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment Comments Of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 Date of Comments: May 14, 2021 a. After reviewing the Transportation Impact, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Justification Study (December 2020) submitted by Salvini Consulting, Transportation Services offer the following comments. The site is estimated to generate less than 20 vehicle trips in either the AM or PM peak hours, which will have minimal impact on the surrounding road network. Also, Heritage Drive is estimated under future traffic conditions to have approximately 3110 vehicles per day. This includes Heritage Drive and site development traffic and falls between the designed operating traffic volumes for a Minor Collector roadway of 2000 to 5000 vehicles per day. The proposed parking rates for this development follow the intent of the City of Kitchener future zoning by-law and visitor parking will be accommodated on-site for this development. The report referenced additional on-site bicycle parking above the minimum requirement, existing GRT services and pedestrian walkability, each encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation, which the City of Kitchener is supportive of. Therefore, based on the rational, proxy site data collection and analysis, Transportation Services can support the parking reduction being proposed by Salvini Consulting. Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller( kitchener.ca Page 27 of 157 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form Address: 210 Heritage Drive Owner: Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. Application #: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/005/H/CD Comments Of: City of Kitchener — Urban Design- Planning Commenter's Name: Pegah Fahimian Email: Pegah.fahimian@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7342 Date of Comments: June 21, 2021 131 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) /„ ❑X No meeting to be held,, 0 ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) ''% ''%,, 1. Documents Reviewed: !o ,� °. • Urban Design Brief, 210 Heritage Drive. March 2021 (Revised). GSP,G;roup;vvith�Peg Orchard Design Studio Inc. %!%,, 'oo, • Tree Management Plan (Dwg. L0.0)' �Tree Inventory Chart (D-wg.'C0.1)'%Tree Protection Details ori and Notes (Dwg. L0.2), /'j ///'%, • Landscape Enhancement Plan (Dwg. L1.0) and Details (Dwg. L2:0). REV Mar 22/21. GSP Group. 2. Site -Specific Comments &Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above)to supporta Zoning By -Law Amendment to rezone 210 Heritage Drive from R-3 to R-6 to permit the %onstruction of a 26 -unit stacked townhouse development (multiple dwellings) with surface,parking. There are some design modifications that must be addressed for the site plan applic ion process�'to ensure the project fits in the context of the neighbourhood as detailed below: • Much of the perimeter and particularlyth`e eastern and northern portion of the site is heavily treed and with the proposed site Iayou a significant amount of on-site vegetation is likely to be removed. Rq This will negatively mp�ache"remaining vegetation on adjacent private lands and Georgian park; Consider designs to"'A sgme of the existing trees, such as maximizing the setback from the east %<> %, side and back of", property lines that do not interfere with the existing trees. • Where;a,functional"back yard is provided in an interior yard, adequate interior yard setback should be provided.�d'dditionally, a landscaped setback between the property line and the proposed patio should be`°provided to allow for privacy screening. The proposed western side yard is less than what is typically provided for a functional rear yard. Considering the siting requirements for infiltration galleries and swale, there will be insufficient space to provide the required 1.5m buffers and plantings; this yard setback should be increased. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 1 of 3 Page 28 of 157 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form • Shared outdoor amenity space is to be provided at grade. Please keep in mind the minimum space requirements for multiple residential developments (2sq.m x # Units) + (2.5 sq.m x # bedrooms- # units) = Outdoor Amenity Space. Please see Urban Design Manual for further requirements. • Minimize the visual impact of parking through the thoughtful placement, orientation, and articulation of built form. Locate proposed accessible surface parking away from the public street frontage, preferably at the rear of the building and internal to the site. �i� • All utility locations including meter room and transformer room to be shown on the layout. Building -mounted or ground-based AC units should be located away from public, iewand fully //%iii screened, Otherwise, screen these elements visually with landscaping and archite%ct"ural features VRI that are integrated into the building design as a whole.i,, i "q ��/% • Provide additional separation between units #17, #18 and Block A. Consider design strategies to MNA" j mitigate the privacy concerns. • Preliminary Floor plans and building unit breakdown should b6$rovided. i 3. Comments on Submitted Documents The following comments should be addressed at this°;time. 1) Tree Management Plan: rlglp • Due to the location of the propqsed"'fe.taining wall, there were many existing trees proposed for removal. Provide additional information regarding the construction of the proposed retaining wall and its heights Additional mitigation measures to be considered for the construction of the retaining wallto minimize the impact on the on-site vegetation. • Written permission for 11 removal of or impact to trees in ioint ownership alone Droperty lines is • There -;are numerous trees on the site and adjacent properties that must be adequately protected a i%aoi `iii `throughout demolition, grading and construction; the driplines of these trees may impact the limit of'A'Veloprrient for the subject property. • The'Tree Protection Fencing should be extended along the entire west and north property lines at dripline + 1m to provide sufficient protection to all trees. • For safety reasons, additional information and confirmation should be provided for trees in poor condition (Condition 4 or 5) that have been proposed to be retained. • A revised Tree Management Plan is required. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 2 of 3 Page 29 of 157 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form 2) Landscape Enhancement Plan: • 3) Provide details of the proposed retaining wall including the proposed height and material. All Utilities should be coordinated with the landscape design and with building elevations to provide a high-quality pedestrian experience within the site and from the public realm. Please show all fencing, bollards, access control gates and site furniture on the landscape plan and provide appropriate details A visual barrier of 1.8m will be required where parking is adjacent to residential land use's' Urban Design Brief: PDF - Building Materials and articulation:,,,,,r r • Full -colour renderings specifying all materials and colours are require db, • Design all building elevations facing the trails and open spaces /to";appear and function as fronts, including features such as porches, front doors and Targe w ndoGus. the elevations facing the trail and Georgian park are highly visible from the publOrealm; enhanced building articulation, large windows and comparable materials to the pried aI fa ade'will be expected on this elevation. • All visible elements of a building, including util" ies (rr%ters, conduits), HVAC (a/c units, vents) ori it and loading/servicing areas are to be integrated into the design of the building and shown on elevation drawings as part of the building 6.levation approval process. Utility meters should be Q, "/. �I located within building niches or oninternal end walls of townhouse blocks and screened. • Incorporate windows clerestory glas�/and sidelights into entrance designs to encourage '� 4' ' natural surveillance and give permeability to the building facade. Avoid clustering opaque doors to units close together o'rwithout glazing between them providing natural surveillance. r o% r i r A/4/' / i ' ,✓ G> A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 3 of 3 Page 30 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Alberta Fiche Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 11:15 AM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive Kitchener, ON Dear Mr Dumart, I am a community member residing within the 120 meters of the proposed zoning change to 210 Heritage Drive property. My home is located directly behind this said property, and would be impacted by this re zoning change. I am in receipt of the community member letter issued to the developer dated 05May 2021 with the brief proposed zoning by-law amendment contained in the letter. I am writing to request the complete Application for Zoning By -Law Amendment made by Pioneer Tower Inc., This would provide transparency and clarity with respect to the proposed re zoning. I await your response in this very important manner. My contact information is: Alberta Piche )N Email : Iphonr. Home phone Regards, Alberta Piche Page 31 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Jameson Hyde > Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2021 3:51 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: Notice of Zoning By-law Amendment - 210 Heritage Drive Attachments: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png; image006.png; image007.png; image008.png; image009.png; image011.png; image012.png; image013.png; image014.png; image015.png; image016.png; image017.png; image018.png; image019.png; image010.png; image020.png; image021.png; image022.png; image023.png; image024.png; image025.png; image026.png; image027.png Thanks Craig, A more complete set of concerns will follow, but one major concern we have is regarding the tree plan. We note among others that tree 586 is marked for removal. This appears to be on our property line More generally, even if trees are retained, what is the likelihood that trees will survive? We've spoken to Reep Green Solutions, regarding sugar maples, and they indicated that the fragile shallow roots are wide spread and so very likely to be impacted by construction or erosion. I would hope there are assurances or even penalties that trees will in fact be retained over time after the development is complete. Anyway. I appreciate some insight into this, but will discuss further as more information becomes available. Thanks again On Thu., May 6, 2021, 19:12 Craig Dumart, <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Jameson, In Addition to my previous email the circulation letter included a link to Current Planning and Development Consultations: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/planning-and-development-consultations.aspx this page takes you to the main development page and on the right hand side you can select current planning applications which takes you to our new Planning Applications story maps page with all our planning current applications. I just checked and the site was down for maintenance but should be up and running tomorrow early AM. I have attached additional information on the application for your review. We will be holding a Neighbourhood Meeting in late June where the application will be presented to the public followed by a q and a discussion. Have a great evening Page 32 of 157 From: Owen Cowles Sent: Monday, May 10, 20214y3pm To: Planning (SM);Craig oumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive In regards to: Address: 210 HERITAGE DR Application Number: Z8A21/0U5/H/CD Application Type: Zoning By -Law Amendment Good Afternoon, N1yname inOwen Cowles, and | live a! along with mywife Roxanne and two children, Shelby and Nolan. VVehave enjoyed living inthis area ofKitchener for over 2Oyears. We raised our family here, and love the natural areas that surround our home. When we first became aware of this development and application for a zone change, wmwere very alarmed tosay the least. Being avid nature -lovers, we are delighted on a regular basis by what surrounds us. We very much enjoy seeing several different species of birds and animals, along with all the beautiful trees, plants and wild flowers. This iawhat attracted uotuthe area, along with the fact that the neighbourhood primarily consisted ofsingle-family dwellings. I am all for providing new, affordable, innovative housing for the residents of Kitchener, and I do not believe that this project demonstrates any of those characteristics. I feel that the environmental impacts, as well as the sightline issues of building 2 huge3'otory bui|dinge, to replace amuU 1 -level single family home should be rejected.. Myself, my Family and several neighbours share this sentiment, and oppose this application for a zone -change and also oppose the proposed plan to build such massive townhouses. There are several reasons for opposing this zone -change and townhouse project. A lot ofthe reuuono, in my opinion should be fairly obvious to anyone who in familiar with the busy corner that this property is situated on. (parking/traffic/noise/snow removal etc) Other reasons will be expressed at future meetings, as there are too many to list here. Please reconsider changing this property's zoning, and allowing such a huge development onsuch enunsuitable plot ofland. Thank you Owen Cowles and Family Page 33of157 Craig Dumart From: PAUL 0annooEn` Sent: Monday, May l0,o21 9:18 PM To: [raigoumau Subject: [ExTenmxL]mnnene-ZoningApplication for ouHeritage Drive ----- Forwarded Message --- rmm:Paul Ouemo|zer^ _ , — To: 'wuouuavey��kxrhene,ca'<ouo�u @mtcx er.00' Sent: Saturday, February m.zuz1.u5:4u:xop.m. Ea/ Subject: ne:ne-ZbninQApplication for 210Heritage Drive Dear MrDavey, As a life time resident of Kitchener Waterloo I am vehemently opposed to a re -zoning application for 210 Heritage Drive. I live and my backyard is right next to the property in consideration. My recently passed wife and I have lived here tor nveraoyears. me raised our oboys here and they attended Canadian Martyrs School and Grand River High School. Mywife grew uponMa,mataCrescent and attended Canadian Martyrs and St Mary's High School. She grew upplaying inthe woods behind our house. This proposed development does not fit the residential neighbourhood. The increase of people, cars, traffic and removal of many trees is not appropriate. With so many declining green spaces the removal of these older trees is devastating.we nxnu|d be planting trees and having green spaces not mowing them down and laying brick and oaxpxa|t. Over the years we have had issues with people in the woods behind our house late at niQm, with more people | can only see this getting worse. For acity showing concern for its residents this application should behastily disapproved. There ianoreason for this development to occur. As you live in the area I'm sure you are familiar with the location, Years ago there was atragic accident right at the turn, with more cars and people this is more apt to occur again, For residents on Muskoka Court, I cannot even see how this could be developed without having a huge impact on their homes. So | implore you to have the city reject this re zoning application. Any developer with any caring would obviously see this is not appropriate for this area/location. Yours truly, Page 34of157 Craig Dumart From: SPCA Community Development <development@spcakitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 10:01 AM To: rossjessop@rogers.com Cc: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 210 Heritage Drive Updates Hi Ross, I have forwarded your questions to the City planner for the project, Craig. He is included on this email. Thanks, Chris ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Home JESSOP Date: Mon, May 10, 2021 at 5:37 PM Subject: Re: 210 Heritage Drive Updates To: SPCA Community Development <development@spcakitchener.ca> Good day. What environmental studies have been done? There are several red tailed hawks that now have nests in the treed area. How will other nature/animals be affected by this development. With over 70% of homes having two vehicles where will these vehicles be parked, will the bylaws affect the parking restrictions on local streets? Have the local stores/landlords/schools been asked what they will do with cars that are parked on their property overnight. Where are these vehicles going to park during the winter when no parking on streets is allowed? What are the accommodations for guest parking for this development? How are the additional water, sewer, hydro, fire hydrants and cable requirements going to be dealt with and who is going to pay for these needed upgrades? What is the emergency response access to the property? According to the plans there will be multi level buildings in the development how is a fire ladder truck going to respond to an emergency in this parking lot? I will be looking for a written response/plan of action from the city on how they will deal with these concerns. Thank you Ross Jessop Page 35 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Ed Dyck Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 8:16 PM To: Craig Dumart; Chris Letizi; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive May 13 2021 LETTER OF OPPOSITION Ed and Alice, residents of Kitchener are opposing the proposed rezoning and development of the property at 210 Heritage Drive. The plan to develop this site is not consistent with the broader intent of the neighbourhood that is designated R3. Multiple -family residences tend to be clustered together in large developments near other dense land uses, such as commercial and office,as opposed to being scattered throughout neighbourhoods; multiple family residences are typically, physically and visually isolated from single-family residences; it is the goal of the Planning Commission of the City of Kitchener to preserve existing neighbourhoods. Our opposition is also based on these potential and probable negative effects. 1 The loss of neighbourhood and community character 2 A decrease in the market value of our home 3 Increased traffic congestion adding to an already dangerous situation on Heritage and Halifax Drive. Entrance to 210 Heritage Drive is exactly where the streets meet, making it very dangerous especially at rush hours 4 The destruction of green space and mature trees as well as driving animals and birds out of the area 5 The City of Kitchener promotes Tree Saving, Tree Retention and Tree Preservation 6 The steep hill (RAVINE) is about 10 meters high from our backyard and is directly behind us and is a big concern because the soil is fragile and erosion will likely occur 7 Who will be responsible if soil and water run off and flood our backyard and seep into our basement 8 Who will be responsible if trees die off after construction 9 Noise, dust and light pollution is a big concern 10 Rezoning will challenge snow removal and garbage pick-up 11 This type of complex does not fit into the single family neighbourhood because (the ravine is too steep and the land is too fragile) 12 Once the property is rezoned, the developer can change the original concept within the approved R6 zoning Page 36 of 157 13 We believe that the City of Kitchener designated this site Zone R3 when the area was first developed for housing because of the ravine. Please do not Rezone this site to R6. Single family construction fits within this neighbourhood and community Respectfully, Ed and Alice Dyck Page 37 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Home JESSOP Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 3:09 AM To: 'SPCA Community Development'; Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fwd: 210 Heritage Drive Updates Good day Craig. You did not address all my concerns. What about environmental studies, what is being done regarding additional water, sewer, hydro, cable services, who is paying for these upgrades? It is easy to claim that the bylaw changes only control the property, how is he city going to accommodate all the surrounding affects this project will have on the rest of the area. Are these going to be rental units or purchased/owned? What bylaw will stop someone buying units and then renting them... owner not living in the unit? Thank you Ross Jessop From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Sent; Thursday, May 13, 202111:33:02 AM To: 'SPCA Community Development' <development@spcakitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Fwd: 210 Heritage Drive Updates Hi Ross, I hope you are doing well A Tree management plan was submitted with the application. Let me know if you would like me to forward you that plan. The proposed parking rate of 1.26 spaces per units exceeds the new council endorsed parking rate of 1.1 spaces per unit. Planning and Transportation staff have no concerns with the parking rate as it exceeds our new council endorsed By-law parking requirements. On site visitor parking will be provided onsite along with barrier free parking spaces. Zoning By-laws do not regulate parking on streets or public lands, rather zoning regulates uses and built forms on private property. Our Fire route plans are required for site plan approval. Fire prevention staff and building staff will review the application at site plan whereas the proposed application is only for an amendment to the zoning. Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7073 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 craig.dumartCcD_kitchener.ca Page 38 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Anthony Anthony Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 9:48 AM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments against the development of 210 Heritage, Kitchener Good day sir, I hope all is well and you are keeping safe during these strange times. I would like to submit my comments strongly against the current development plans being proposed for 210 Heritage. My name is Anthony Lanni and I reside a' The plan to develop at 210 Heritage is incredibly aggressive and the surrounding community implores you to reject the developers plans to permanently change the landscape by decimating one of the cities few remaining urban forest habitats, all in an attempt to maximize profit by cramming a rediculous amount of housing units, and a parking lot, onto a property that should not even be in consideration for this type of development. While affordable housing is indeed required in our city, any pros of development on this specific property are far outweighed by cons. And surely there are a number of better suited sites for proposed plans such as this. While the revised plan does aim to preserve more trees, what should be considered moreso is that any trees removed for this large scale proposal are unfortunate, unnecessary and overall tragic. The natural and beautiful landscape as it currently sits will be forever shaped towards the negative. What is also not explicitly covered in the plan are the potential effects of erosion and added issues that will created due to snow removal and additional water run off; that a wide variety of numerous woodland creates will be made homeless; that there is a real concern of decreased property value in the surrounding community and homes; that there will be a 100% increase in noise and air pollution; and of course the obvious giant eye sore that this proposal will create. This bended corner of Heritage is also already a traffic hazard which would be made exceptionally worse with what will surely bring overflow parking. "The urban forest in and around our towns and cities provides many benefits including: sequestering of gaseous air pollutants and particulates; energy conservation; storm -water attenuation; noise buffering; provision of wildlife habitat; increased property value; improved aesthetics; psychological well-being; and recreational and educational opportunities. These benefits accrue not only to the owners of the trees and forest but also to the entire community." - Heritage Park Community Please do not let the developers financial benefit outweigh the environmental and community impact here. 210 Heritage was never Imagined for a development plan such as this. The developers plans as they sit are overly and incredibly aggressive for a relatively small forested plot of land within a well established community. As I type this, and hear owl and dove calls out my window from the forest across the way, we witness new homes being developed on the other side of Lackner and I can only assume If the city was concerned with obtaining more affordable homes such as what's being proposed that this would have been a more ideal spot to request developers locate them.... Page 39 of 157 amongst all the new homes and open space.... not tearing down a forest to cram 26 units and a parking lot into 210 Heritage, an established urban forest and community. I would also please request that you yourself attend the site of 210 heritage to get the full sense of how a development of this calibre makes little sense on this property. Thank you for reading Craig All the best, Anthony Lanni Page 40 of 157 Craia Dumart From: Rafael Bazzarella Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 3:44 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning By -Law Amendment - 210 Heritage Dr. - Against proposed change Hello Craig, We received the notice of a Zoning by-law amendment for 210 Heritage Dr. and wanted to communicate that we are against the change from current(R-3) to the proposed (R-6) . Please let us know if anything else is needed. Thank you, Marlene Fiusa Bazzarella and Jose Carlos Bazzarella Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. Page 41 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 1u:u3 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage, Kitchener - Zone & Use Change Craig Dumart 6th Floor, Planning division, Kitchener City Hall P.O.Box 1118, 200 King St W., Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 May 20, 2021 Dear Sir, Re: Pioneer Tower Homes, 210 Heritage Drive, Kitchener I was disappointed with the information package, that was sent to us with regard to the above application Much of the information seems to be missing. Important information that should be included: 1) Property size - Area & Perimeter sizes (I am guessing .97acres and about 810' perimeter) 2) Increased Floor space ratio from what to .68 - which allows a 27,000 Square feet of building 3) The map appears to show that the foot path between Heritage and Matthew will be removed. 4) Building height restrictions - based on elevation level of front or rear of property 5) Lot plan showing building foot print parking foot print of the 33 parking spots (26x1.26) green space and park dedication 6) rendering of Building elevations - front, side and rear 7) Road frontage and access projected increase in traffic - trips 8) Reduced parking from what to 1.26/unit 9) Tree count- current and projected removal number 10) Traffic patterns I would like to thank you in advance for this information I found that the City of Kitchener's website poorly constructed. I was not able to find R-3 or R-6 zoning to use as a base for comparison. If you could provide a link, it would be appreciated. In addition to this, the current bridge on Natchez Road is narrow and undersized and the road is poorly designed at the bridge. The City of Kitchener staff had promised that this 18' wide bridge would be upgraded, when they removed the parallel 32' wide bridge on Matthew Street, 20 Plus years ago. We were promised this, privately before the planning meeting. The City closed the road, removed the bridge and sold the land to a developer, but has forgotten the promise to upgrade. Page 42 of 157 The Natchez bridge must be upgraded, as promised, before any more development or traffic is added. Thank You Calvin]wtzi Page 43of157 Craig Dumart From: Tom Gooding Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 12:50 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Tom Gooding Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive I am not in support of this 26 unit stacked townhouse development. 1)The entrance and exit will be on a bend on Heritage and Halifax which would pose an accident risk to drivers who will be accelerating from the speed bump area. 2)Pedestrians who use Georgian Park may be at risk when drivers exit the complex and would tend to look left and forward and not see the pedestrian on their right. 3)The same exposure would exist for children attending the two nearby schools. 4) Heritage Drive has traffic calming measures in place due the the speed of cars on Heritage Drive additional traffic would add to the speeding issue. 5)Street parking which is now allowed would obscure a driver's vision and would become worse with 26 additional families since there would not be parking for families with multiple vehicles and overflow parking would increase the risk to pedestrians and vehicles 6) Stacked townhouses tend to attract younger families due stairs to each level, so this development would not be attractive to seniors who can manage with one vehicle. 7) Since living here from 1978 and being able to enjoy walking through local parks and by the Grand River I have noticed an increase of litter and illegal dumping that increased with the development of the area. Tom Gooding Page 44 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Helen Cuthbert Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 12:18 PM To: Craig Dumart; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rezoning of 210 Heritage Drive I'd like to add my comments and concerns to the growing number of residents opposed to the rezoning of the above property. I live at DN N2B 3K7. I've lived here since 1990. Over the years, there has been an increase in traffic on Heritage and Halitax urives. Speed and volume have been concerning. Speed bumps were installed to deter the speeding. The increase in traffic I attribute to the easy access to Victoria St. Parking on the road is a constant presence. Parking on boulevards, front lawns and straddling the driveway is a common site. A new development which proposes 26 new units could yield 40+ new vehicles with most households owning 2 cars these days. The zone change includes a request to reduce the required parking rate ?? All surface parking, garbage, recycling receptacles and the collection of it will add the the volume of noise in our relatively quiet neighborhood. There will be a removal of mature trees and re -grading of the land. This will degrade our neighbourhood significantly. While I dont oppose development of this space, I propose maintaining it's current zoning and ALLOW ONLY for similar semi-detached or row townhouse style homes to maintain the esthetic of the established neighbouring homes. Thank you for considering my concerns when making a decision to rezone my beloved neighborhood in which I hoped to retire peacefully. Sincerely, Helen Cuthbert Page 45 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Mike Cooper > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 2:22 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Dr. Proposal I am opposed to the building of a multi -unit complex at the site of 210 Heritage Dr. in Kitchener. I have talked to many of my neighbours and all of them agree that this development should not be allowed. Some of my reasons for not allowing it to proceed, are SAFETY ISSUES such as: 1) Initial construction traffic and the safety issues that will be caused with heavy truck traffic (dump trucks) in a quiet residential area with multiple schools in the immediate vicinity. 2) Increased resident traffic after completion which will impact similar traffic safety issues in an area that has had traffic issues in the past for which traffic quieting measures (speed bumps) have been put in place. Even these measures are often ignored by motorists. This again impacts the safety of the many children and elderly residents already in the area. 3) Parking is already difficult, at best, for the existing residents to have visitors and this problem can only increase with the addition of more residents. 4) The corner of Heritage Dr. and Halifax Dr. is already a dangerous corner to begin with and has been the location of numerous accidents in the past. These are just a few of the safety concerns that immediately come to mind and I'm sure there are probably others that I have not addressed. I'm sure others that have replied to this issue have mentioned concerns with the possible impacts on property values, sewage and water issues, structural damage to existing homes due to vibration from heavy construction traffic and so on. Please do not allow this development to proceed. Dennis M. Cooper Page 46 of 157 Dumart From: John Draper Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 20214:27 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re 210 Heritage Drive zoning amendment Dear Sir: I have been living in the area since 1997 at Im apposed to the to change zoning to permit the construction of the townhouse proposal from a single family unit. The green space that is well the established in the area and is a habitat for many animals including hawks. The original owner of the lands had an agreement with the city to the effect that the greenbelt would not be altered. The environmental impact to the area including the properties at the base of the hill would be impacted by altering the water absorption etc from a large paved area. The parking which is limited for the use by the tenants, would create street narrowing as visitors and additional tenant vehicles are forced to park on adjacent streets above an below the pedestrian walkway. I personally think the developer saw a relatively inexpensive land purchase to be flipped for profit. I do have a problem with opportunistic developers who take advantage of zoning bylaws with the intention of turning the political guidelines in favour of their agenda with little or no regard for the community they are taking advantage of. I hope the many of the community who have posted "No" signs and have verbally expressed a do not touch message take a moment to send letters we hope you will take seriously and say no to this project. Yours truly John and Bonnie Draper Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Page 47 of 157 Craig Dumart From: DAUB Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 5:58 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage drive The current zoning of R3 fits in with the neighbourhood, I feel that the parcel in question is much too small to accommodate 26 units and the required parking. The entrance to the property is too narrow for the number of cars that would be entering and exiting at high peak times. The pedestrian pathway coming right out by the driveway is dangerous, I have seen bicycles come out at quite a speed and vehicles exiting the driveway won't be looking for bikes. I have looked at the traffic study, and in my opinion the developer has slanted it in his favour. Regarding the increased traffic ....let's face it most people have 2 cars, and u can make all the room in the world but not that many people use bicycles. I understand that a parcel of land that size can accommodate more than one unit, but 26 is way too much, so consider this my formal objection to the zone change. Tim and Rhian Daub Sent from my iPad Page 48 of 157 Dumart From: Andrew Kelly Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:38 AM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application to change the zoning of 210 Heritage Drive Hello Craig, I am writing to you today to voice my opposition to the application to change the zoning of 210 Heritage Drive. One of the reasons for my opposition is that the height and density of the proposed development is inconsistent with the area. This area is overwhelmingly predominantly single detached dwellings and the proposed development is completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Another reason for my opposition is the proposed parking is utterly inadequate to serve the proposed development and will subsequently result in overflow street parking which will create safety hazards for other residents of the area and in particular the children of the neighbourhood. Another reason for my opposition is that the construction, the proposed development, and subsequent traffic will create unacceptable noise and congestion in the area. In these times of Covid-19 where a majority of tax -payers in the area are working from home, the noise created will severely disrupt people's ability to focus and concentrate. My final concern is about how the stormwater will be managed due to the dramatic increase of impervious cover as a result of the proposed development especially with the property sitting on an elevated place compared to the parallel running Nipigon Street and Muskoka Court. As this is a matter of extreme importance to myself and my family I would appreciate it if you could keep me updated with regards to the status of the application. Thank you for your time, Andrew Kelly Page 49 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Sherri Lynn Brown Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 12:43 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw:210 Heritage Hello, my name is Sherri -Lynn Brown. I wanted to put my input into the discussion about the multiple dwelling townhouses being developed just a few houses over from me. I'm sorry this email found you a day late, I accidentally sent to the wrong address? I hope it still has merit? We live a We are very concerned and are definitely against the rezone!! The corner of heritage and Halifax drive is a very busy corner as it is!? We have small children not only in our house but our neighbors also three or four houses down and we're finding that this busy corner is a problem with a lot of cars and our children don't even play in the front yard because cars drive by so fast as a matter of fact, there has been multiple cars that have driven on to the boulevards of some of my neighbors front yards due to cars driving by too quickly and with a higher volume of vehicles in that corner will make things a lot more dangerous, not to mention all of the wonderful trees that are on that property that are home to many beautiful different bird species that my family enjoy feeding and listening to in the morning. With all of the develop going on around lackner, breslau, lackner Woods everywhere else! I feel that this development does not deserve a reason to rezone? There are many new developments going on in the area where this, little tiny patch of a corner of a street that already has a gigantic building kitty corner. Just will be terrible for me as well as my neighborhood! My husband and I have had a long talk and decided that if this rezoning goes through we are considering selling our house. This is a very sad decision but with all of the construction going on and all of that high volume of tenants that would be in all of those 26 units is just too much for us. The neighborhood will no longer be as quiet and peaceful and its absolutely not where we would any longer like to live! I have had many conversations with my fellow neighbours who all feel the same. They have made signs to let other fellow neighbours be aware of the rezone at hand because very likely I'm sure they all will feel the same as us about the rezone that it is too compact with too many units!? Its ridiculous! 26 signs were made and only 15 remain!? So obviously who ever is behind that wants the rest of the neighborhood to be unaware. How sad! Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns in this email and I will be on the zoom meeting in June. Sincerely, Sherri -Lynn Brown Sent from my Huawei phone Page 50 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Rob Argalis Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:43 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Against zoning of 210 Heritage Drive Hello Craig, We are home owners at ted a few houses away from 210 Heritage Drive and we are against the proposed zoning change from residential three zone (R-3) to residential six zone (R-6). We feel this project will be detrimental to the local environment, loss of trees, ground cover vegetation and local wildlife. The project construction phase will disrupt the tranquility of the neighbourhood by increased noise, dust, traffic and people congestion. If completed, these same issues will bean ongoing concern for everyone in our neighbourhood. Concerned residents Rob and Simone Argalis Page 51 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Gary and Alberta Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 2:20 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Scott Davey; development@spcakitchener.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive -Opposition Letter Attachments: Revised Letter of Oppositio1.docx; Scan0003.pdf; Scan0030.pdf Dear Craig, Attached is the opposition to the rezoning application for 210 Heritage Drive. Gary and I compiled this Letter of Opposition with input from Muskoka Court residents. We attached 2 scanned documents for better viewing. Please clarify if we receive your prepared staff report in advance of the June 24, 2021 public meeting? In that staff report will there be a list of City Employees that will be in attendance. Craig Enjoy what is left of your vacation. Best Regards, Alberta Pirhe and Gary Dinkel Page 52 of 157 28May 2021 Letter of Opposition: Primary Recipient — Craig Dumont Senior Planner City of Kitchener Agroup cf residents living onMuskoka Court, oppose the proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment from anR-3 to R-6. We oppose the Zoning -by -Law Amendment that includes site specific permissions for increased building height (10.5meters hn11.5 meters) increased Floor Space (0.6 to 0.68) and reduce the required parking rate. Introduction: ~========= The City ofKitchener issecond toBarrie aethe fastest growing city inCanada. 800growing city most residents understand that more housing inneeded. City residents are raising doubts concerning the pace at which applications for rezoning are proceeding. A few examples ufproposed intensification are the locations of: Mill -Queen Street, Belmont Ave., Avon Road, and the recent application of 210 Heritage Drive, Kitchener. The majority of rezoning issues are happening in well-established neighbourhoods. These areas have the most mature trees and are facing development pressure. Less than two blocks from 210 Heritage Drive, a new subdivision is being constructed on Otterbein Drive. The initial construction is large upscale homes, starting prices well above one million dollars. Included in the design is a plan for RG devo|opmont, however this has not started. This subdivision would have been well suited for intensification. There are no multi story apartments, no affordable housing, and unknown as to the number of townhouses. This isofine example of^Dmwnzoning.^ Most new subdivision developments inthe city are geared to 'downzoning" as opposed to "intensification." For example Deer Ridge only has single family homes, Doon South houses a majority of single family homes and western side of the city houses more single family homes than any other type of structure. KEY ISSUE: A great number of Stanley Park residents oppose the proposed rezoning application and the proposed future development of the property located at 210 Heritage Drive, Kitchener. This proposed rezoning application from R3 to R6 would change the permitted use of current zoning R-3. In addition, this proposed Zoning By-law with amendments would allow the applicant to build a 26 -unit 3 -storey stacked townhouse development, with limited surface single car parking. 210 Heritage Drive ialisted on having O.Q8Oofnnacre. Hnwever, approximately less than half of this site (0.459 of an acre) is buildable due an unstable 7.5 meter hill on the eastern side ofthe property. This proposed rezoning application directly impacts residents of Muskoka Court; Mathew Court; Halifax Drive and Heritage Drive. Page 53of157 VV*the residents |ivi . concerns with the soil instability ontop of the hill; the projected number oftrees toberemoved; soil erosion; storm water management (groundwater drainage); change in the wildlife habitat, pedestrian safety; street parking from overflow reducing visibility ; snow removal; accumulation of snow piles; snow melting; and salt distribution impacting the surrounding ecological landscape. 21OHeritage Drive, isone ofthe last larger pieces nfprivate property located inthe Stanley Park Neighbourhood. The property listed for development includes a large stand of mature trees inside onatural Urban Forest. Our counter arguments to the development of 210 Heritage Drive are the following: 1� EnvimnmenVBindivemUy-U±mnFomat-TnaeGustoinabi|dy 2. Ecological impact -Soil stability/Soil erosion 3. Groundwater levels 4. Pedestrian Safety 1. Urban Forests: ============ Urban Forests are gems inthe growing urban areas, nnmatter how small, are still meant to act oaanecological corridor honature. (Refen*noe: ChynfKitchonorUdbanFonastry-yNarch 17,2017). Further review of the Tree Management plan raises apprehension with the removal of48 trees. Of the 4Otrees, 25are located onthe hill and upper part ofthe slope. An additional 36 trees are numbered "significant development impact" due to construction, and mostlikely will be lost. Potentially there could be a total loss of 61 trees from the top of the hill to the middle of the hill. The potential tree loss on the eastern side of the property will likely impact soil erosion onanalready stated ^unstable"hill. If 61 trees situated on the hill are lost with this construction, this represents 65% of the tree cover. The remaining 32 trees are located within a couple of meters of the Muskoka Court residents' property line. Trees offer plenty of environmental and economic benefits: helping reduce the effects of climate change, improving air and water quality, reducing erosion and just creating a place that iobeautiful and where people feel good. 1. They help mitigate the effects of climate change by storing carbon and absorbing up 0o150kilograms ofCO2per tree every year. 2. Trees can cool air inthe city by2-8degrees C..reducing energy needs for air conditioning. 3. Bigger trees filter soot, and other pollutants- Sulphur oxides, and carbon monoxide. 4. Trees help manage run-off from paved and hard surfaces, filtering pollutants such as grease and grit, releasing the water gradually into the soil and groundwater. Page 54of157 A2O14study byTDEconomics determined that for every dollar spent maintaining trees, cities inCanada enjoyed anywhere from $1.O8bz$12.70inbenefits. Tree replacement is planned, in keeping with the standards set out by the City of Kitchener Urban Planners. However it goes without saying that saplings take years to grow to replace the now standing mature trees that are at heights of up to 20 meters. These trees provide clean methods inreducing the daily carbon emissions ufnearby traffic. Niall Lobley, Kitchener's Director of Parks and Recreation was quoted in the Record dated November 20.2O20aosaying, '' The biggest threat tothe existing tree canopy iathe loss oy significant, mature trees. These losses are from pests and intensification." David Schmitt, Kitchener's Environmental and Urban Forest Project Manager, was quoted in the Record dated April 11, 2020. "Trees are long-term assets that don't yield maximum benefits until 40 years or more after they're planted. So it is not enough to simply plant trees and hope for the best. Councilor Debbie Chapman, of the downtown ward was quoted in the Record dated Nov. 2O.2O20.^Trees come down with great aaae.^ Once mature trees are removed in preparation for construction, they cannot beput back aathe same. Councilor Sarah Marsh is quoted as saying "Some developers will cut down all the mature trees on a site early on, then plans change, and we are left without the trees that were." Once construction starts there is no guarantee that further tree removal will not occur. The shallow root systems ofthe Sugar Maple trees will baexposed during the construction. All of the trees located on this property are protective measures to mitigate soil erosion and hold in check the |evo|o of groundwater. Henwa, an urban forest is classified as an ecosystem. 2 . Soil Stab|hy/Enosion: GM Blue Plan Engineering determined "soil instability on top of the hill', resulting in the change nfthe location cf"Block B^ With the projected number nftrees Voberemoved (minimum of 37% to a maximum of 66%) soil erosion will be a problem; and could impact groundwater levels and drainage. QUESTION: Hence, the developer changed the site of Block "B". However, it was not clear ifthe new location is stable for abuild? QUESTION: Snow removal and salt: where is the snow going tobeplaced, and salt leaking into the groundwater? Little room for the snow plows to push the snow and store until trucks can load upand remove. This snow should not bepushed orsent over the hill! QUESTION: We are unable to visualize the location of the retaining wall ascribed in the diagram? How far down the hill? We ask if developer would place stakes for our view. Page 55of157 3 Groundwater runoff/drainage Taken from the above Engineering Plan: "Existing elevations on site range from approximately 323.50m to 331.00m. Under existing conditions, runoff generated from a portion of the site sheet flows uncontrolled overland west towards the existing municipal easement and the Halifax Drive and Heritage Drive right-of- ways. Runoff generated from the remainder of the site sheet flows uncontrolled overland to the east towards an existing catch basin on easement from Muskoka Court." The catch base was installed behind #19 Muskoka Court to circumvent water pooling from heavy rainfall. However, with the planned construction and disturbance of the natural environment will challenge what is currently in place. My teleconference with the initial City of Kitchener Senior Planner- Brian Bateman dated on January 28, 2021, confirmed that he and staff have walked the property. They reported that the property has, "a lot of mature trees." He and staff tagged a number of the mature trees for the City of Kitchener's inventory. We asked the question in this teleconference about the water drainage outlet. Mr. Bateman advised that the engineers are aware of that water drainage. However, if the development is allowed this drainage system would require an improvement, again sacrificing trees to make this allowance. QUESTION: Would this water drainage outlet be the City of Kitchener's responsibility? Of note the email I received May 25, 2021 from the newly assigned City Planner stated that the City Engineers have reviewed the proposal and have," No concerns". We are asking for further clarification with respect to the water drainage plan? In the past a Muskoka Court resident when removing his swimming pool winter cover noticed a slow absorption of the water into the soil, suggesting the groundwater level in this area has a tendency to be on the high side. We are all worried about weather events causing water damage to our properties. 4. Pedestrian Safety -------------- -------------- The City of Kitchener has determined that Heritage Drive required traffic calming methods to slow traffic. Heritage Drive and Halifax Drive are primary routes to two elementary schools and one high school. Heritage and Halifax Drives intersect at a 90 degree corner with single access and egress from 210 Heritage Drive. There is an additional sidewalk a few meters from the driveway at 210 Heritage that runs to Mathew Street with reduced site lines exiting this property. Page 56 of 157 Conclusion The City ofKitchener has supported unUrban Forestry plan. ACity ofKitchener employee David Schmidt, Environmental and Urban Forestry Project Manager, believes that trees are enasset, just like the sewer pipes and the street lights. Allowing rezoning applications that jeopardize our urban forests' is counter -intuitive. The fact the applicant wants to develop a specific piece of property should not justify a rezoning of 210 Heritage Drive, contrary to the Qh/'n Urban Forestry Planning mandate. "Some councilors made bclear atarecent meeting that they want tougher controls on developments" (Referenoe:The Record dated 2UNov2O20.VVebelieve that local governments need to consider the long-term effects of their land use decisions. We ask that the rezoning of21OHeritage Drive from R-3 toR-6with amendments not be Respectfully submitted, Alberta Piche and Gary Dinkel Residents nfMuskoka Court. cc Scott Davey; Chris Letizi Attachments Page 57of157 CA Vg N f g AA 37 ` t � � '�':' �'p�+✓ '�1�'Y� �,s t�q,��ti }."r"t.�".rf�a:� f�a'^tM R. s f •Y"i J` Pay' i'''t "� �l..� hsis". fi=N^ f�4lk View of trees from 7-19 Muskoka Court o�x«r�a rf riF f Irdi r�f� k 7 �LI I1 r kiT0pig NOR 11 v Li I i L HEDRIv RITA elm I k t, 0 OO -- ra- 4 9 O Es w Yellow highlighted are trees that will be cut down. Red highlighted are trees that will have significant development impact by construction and could be lost. Page 59 of 157 Rear view of 15-19 Muskoka Court. Note the lower row of trees may be the only trees left after construction. Page 60 of 157 Aerial view of project showing trees to be removed in blue, and trees in red that will have, "Significant development impact" due to construction of the new town homes. Note if all trees in red were to be lost, this would represent 65% of trees on this part of the property. Page 61 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Ernst Wuethrich <ernst.wuethrich@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 2:52 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Road Zoning change I oppose the zoning change for these reason. The number of Tenants (26 stacked units) is way too crowed for this piece of Land; the impact on the traffic in and out to Heritage street for so many people will create a traffic nightmare that is hard to imagine. The Houses and Parking are to dense, crammed and there is not enough room for People to move and dwell around. To me it looks like Chicken Coups where you cram in as much as possible and destroy the nice Neighbourhood and appeal that we have enjoy for so many years. If you cut the Number of units to single ones (13) it is still more than what you can put in a space like this, 2 single houses would blend nicely with the rest of the Neighbourhood I could see, but not so many units as it is planned. Thanks for letting me expressing my concerns. Ernst Wuethrich Page 62 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Dan Illes n> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 2:54 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive Hello Craig, My name is Daniel Illes and I am the owner of 1 Horizon Court located in Ward 1. 1 am writing you today to voice my support for the proposed development at #210 Heritage Drive. I had the privilege of graduating from the GIS and Urban planning program at Fanshawe College in 2011. As someone well versed in the area of planning, I feel this proposed development is exactly the type of intensification the city needs to aid in the current housing shortage and runaway rent/home prices. This lot is of significant size and is a product of a bygone era. Had this size of lot been developed in today's standards, there would be many more residences in its place. I feel the proposed plan addresses the former misuse of a piece of land this size. Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts on the proposed development. Best, Daniel Illes Page 63 of 157 Craig Dumart From: Bert Udema Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 9:12 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive Hi Craig, My name is Bert Udema I I n totally against the proposal of changing the zone change on 210 Heritage Drive. The reason for this is firstly a safety issue as there are a quite few kids in the area that use Heritage and Halifax because of the two schools in our area. The pathway that connects Heritage drive to Matthew crescent is always busy with kids and adults walking down the pathway causing safety concerns for the entire neighbourhood with the amount of new traffic this development would create. The second issue is parking, most people have two cars and after reading the proposal there will not be enough parking with this property. Lastly I have a major concern around the environmental aspect of this development. This build would need to remove a number of trees in the greenspace surrounding the neighbourhood as well as displace a lot of wildlife in the area. How is the golf game? I was the afternoon marshal at Silo. Bert Udema Sent from my Wad Page 64 of 157 Craig, VVeare the owners of aebackyard directly faces through the proposed development site of21OHeritage. We object to the proposed development as being too much density for the established neighbourhood, specifically due to the site geography and traffic safety impacts. The property at 210 Heritage is at a local height of land — the terrain slopes downwards in all directions (significantly to the east and north and to a lesser degree to the south and west). Any construction will by default be starting from a higher point than any neighbours and the developer's request to exceed the R6 zoning height limit will further amplify the dominance of the structures within the localized context. 11.5m in height just 4m from the existing secluded and shaded public pathway along the western property line would have impact ofthe enjoyment ofpedestrians onthis path aowell as those of us whose backyards abut the path (and would be subject to a significant overlook from the third floor of the townhouses). The northern block of townhouses would also tower over the Muskoka Court properties where the grade is 5 or 6m lower than the 210 Heritage site. Even with the R6 zoning change, the developer is also looking for a variance for the Floor Space Ratio (FSR)from 0.Gio0.08(an over 1396inomoue). While the regulation apparently allows up to 0.75 for the development where "it can be demonstrated that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding community", this is clearly not met given there is no similar existing development within the surrounding community. Our understanding iathatzoningmaximumavvenede5nedopociOoe||yh000ntm|thodanoih/of development to what is reasonable for the location and immediate neighbourhood. By requesting avariance tothat degree, itstrongly suggests that the proposal iotoo much for this location. Reducing the number of planned units would therefore not require any variance. A further benefit of fewer units would be a reduction in the planned surface parking area. This would therefore reduce the water runoff that is of significant concern to residents of Muskoka Court. We are also concerned about the safety impacts given the site location at the turn where Heritage intersects with Halifax. There is limited visibility to the west for traffic heading northbound on Heritage (with 50km/h limit) towards Halifax. Page S5of157 Any traffic heading eastbound on Halifax and turning left to access the 210 Heritage property would be cutting across the northbound traffic, who would not have much advance warning of this turning movement. The more units built on the site, the more potential turning conflicts would occur and the risk of accidents. As such, our recommendation would be that this current proposal be scaled back to a single layer of two story townhouses (one block of eight and one block of five). This would reduce the demand for surface parking (and the resultant water run-off impacts) as well as negate any need for zoning variances for maximum height and Floor Space Ratio, thereby keeping within the intents of the City of Kitchener Official Plan zoning regulations. Thank you, Ian and Joelle Reid Page 66 of 157 When I look at the city's website I see very well written plans, strategies and goals. I see things like, "As your municipal government, we are accountable to you - our residents, and committed to operating in an open and transparent manner. That means conducting our business honestly, ethically and with integrity." and, -"growth, done right, provides a great opportunity to add to the rich character of a neighbourhood. -It's important that new projects consider how they fit in the neighbourhood." and from our mayor, "One of the key lessons that we've learned both from our history and the SDGs is that a municipal government can only succeed when it works in true partnership with the entire community ." All of these documents, plans and goals were obviously written by well meaning people who love and are very passionate about their city. Much thought, deliberation and time went into drafting them. I can also see that Kitchener City Council approved the city's "first Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy and implementation plan that is to serve as the city's guiding document for planning, engaging, maintaining, protecting and planting Kitchener's urban forest and identifies five branches of a sustainable urban forest that are intended to guide future decisions and the setting of priorities." Page 67 of 157 It goes on to state, The following key principles have strongly influenced the development of this strategy: 1. The urban forest includes all trees on public and private lands. 2. The community plays a key role in maintaining and enhancing the urban forest, particularly on private lands. 3. Trees and the larger urban forest provide significant economic, environmental and social benefits to the community. 4. A sustainable urban forest maximizes benefits while minimizing the associated costs and risk. In contrast to traditional corporate assets trees provide their greatest benefits during their latter stages of life. The strategy and implementation plan were developed after an extensive community engagement and planning process including feedback from more than 1,800 citizens. Under Home/in your neighbourhood/trees it states, Our trees are among our most precious assets. They're critical to the health of our local environment - including our air quality, and they enhance the quality of life in our neighbourhoods, parks and natural areas. We - as a community -- must work together to protect them. And under Strategic Plan for the environment, I can read that, "For years, you've reminded us time and time again that the environment should be at the forefront of every decision we make for our city. We've heard you loud and clear - and we're proud to say that Kitchener is considered a municipal leader in environmental planning and stewardship across the country. Page 68 of 157 Things the City looks for through site plan: • Site layout: Locations of buildings and parking areas on the property • Parking lot layout: Design for cars to the through site, driveway locations • Landscape and amenity areas: Landscape buffers, tree protection where possible, tree planting • Grading, servicing and stormwater management: To ensure new project doesn't impact neighbouring properties • Building design: Building elevations consider character of the surrounding neighbourhood • Site lighting: To avoid light spill on adjacent properties • Garbage storage: Location on site, deep well units (e.g. Moloks) or enclosures This lot has issues with most of these these tenets. Other concerns that I have are - the drainage affecting the surrounding homes on Heritage and Muskoka. It's difficult not to be concerned when you're at the bottom of the ravine, and a development of this height, breadth and magnitude is being proposed - traffic congestion and safety at that corner - there are 2 schools within 112 km of that lot and many very young children walking down Heritage and down the walkway abutting the lot on a daily basis - the entrance to the lot is quite narrow and visibility is already an issue - there have already been a few accidents at the corner of Halifax and Natchez, more traffic likely = more accidents Page 69 of 157 We've made it our mission to ensure our environment is ecologically sound and supportive of the health, safety and well-being of our residents. This is done by identifying and implementing strict policies and practices that reflect your values and positively affect our local environment." These strict policies and practices were, according to the website, written by the community. And , under Environmental leadership it states, -implement the Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy with a focus on establishing a tree canopy target by 2020 and eliminating the current (2018) tree planting backlog by 2022. -Achieve a healthy and livable community by proactively mitigating and adapting to climate change and by conserving natural resources. If all of these policies and documents are to be taken seriously, how can one developer be allowed to destroy the old forest on this lot? How does this proposed development follow any of these guidelines other than making a mockery of all of them? How is this development demonstrating that the city is being supportive of our values and positively affecting our local environment? How is "the environment at the the forefront of this decision? How does this development show that "We've heard you loud and clear"? I'm feeling very left out and feeling as if the city has either forgotten us or didn't care in the first place. They may have heard loud and clear but they weren't listening. Right now we know that the development will have major negative effects on the environment, the trees and the wildlife in this area. It's a known fact that songbirds are on the decline in North America. Their food and habitat are disappearing and millions fly into windows every year. This woodlot is home to 3 different types of woodpeckers, 3 different types of finches, 2 types of grosbeaks, Page 70 of 157 cardinals, jays, grackles, cowbirds, doves, 2 types of nuthatches, chickadees, juncos, and a little wren that's decided to overwinter in our hood.... and these are just the ones that we see on a daily basis. There are also owls and hawks that are seen and heard on a weekly basis. We have rabbits, squirrels, a local coyote, all sorts of little rodents, a virtual ecosystem in this forest. The sounds and sights in this little ecosystem are uplifting and make you glad to be alive. How can destroying it not go against everything that is stated in the official vision, plans, strategies and goals of our city. How can this development even be considered? It makes no sense at all. And those are just some of my environmental concerns. I also read the The City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual In Part A it states that, "It is important that townhouses and low-rise multi -residential buildings integrate into their neighbourhoods" and, "it's important that new projects consider how they fit into the neighbourhood." "Consider the massing, height, length, depth, roof design, materials and rhythms of neighbouring buildings when designing for compatibility". And it goes on and on. Given all of this documentation, all of these well thought out and written plans, all of these these official policies visions and strategies that have taken hours and hours to develop and write, these documents that the city espouses so proudly, how does building stacked town homes on top of this ravine lot affecting everyone below make any sense at all? According to The Citizen's Guide to Neighbourhood Development, Page 71 of 157 - the street has already been traffic calmed because of speed, congestion - this development would only add more traffic and congestion in a mostly residential area - there is no adequate parking here, 26 townhomes need more than 33 parking spaces - there are already visibility issues when turning from Keewatin onto Heritage - adding more cars to an already congested, traffic calmed street is ludicrous - every car leaving that proposed development will need to pass one of 2 elementary schools - children are encouraged to walk or bike to school and most of these children will need to cross either Heritage or Natchez and speed and traffic are already issues on both of these streets - this is not an area where densification is desirable or in the City's plans so why the need to rezone? - according to the City's plans high density areas are to be on major thoroughfares and within walking distance of the amenities needed, this area is neither For all of these reasons we ask that the application for the rezoning of 210 Heritage be denied. We support more affordable housing in KW, however this proposed development is totally unsuitable for the property. It goes against everything that your planning department has stated it looks for environmentally and has nothing but devastating effects on the entire neighbourhood it is being "injected" into. Sincerely, Robert and Silvia Cadman Page 72 of 157 May 28, 2021 LETTER OF OPPOSITION in regards to: Address: 210 HERITAGE DR Application Number: ZBA21/005/H/CD Application Type: Zoning By -Law Amendment As a resident of ier we are opposing the proposed rezoning and development of the property at 210 Heritage Drive. The plan to develop this site is not consistent with the broader intent of the neighbourhood that is designated R3. If it is the goal of the Planning Commission of the City of Kitchener to preserve existing neighbourhoods then this one is not considering the official plan or intent. This infill project seems to maximize profits and not consider fitting into the neighbourhood. Our opposition is also based on the following potential and probable negative outcomes 1 The large increased density suggestion on a narrow street front will be a traffic and safety hazard. The proposed number of units will need more parking than is possible and the narrow frontage does not allow for nearby street parking. 2 Increased traffic congestion adding to an already dangerous situation on Heritage Drive and Halifax Drive. Entrance to 210 Heritage Drive is exactly where the streets meet, making it very dangerous. 3. The destruction of green space and mature trees as well as driving animals and birds out of the area. The steep hill (Ravine) from our back -yard, is a concern because the soil is fragile and erosion will likely occur. In addition trees will be removed affecting the health of other trees and the preservation of the woods. Trees support each other in a variety of healthy ways. The City of Kitchener promotes Tree Saving, Tree Retention and Tree Preservation but is willing to dismiss this core value for this proposed change to 210 Heritage Drive. 4 Noise, dust and light pollution is a big concern. Will there be fencing or landscaping to address the increased light pollution from car headlights and parking lot light standards? 5. Rezoning will challenge snow removal and garbage pick-up. 8. This type of complex does not fit into the single home family neighbourhood. When the neighbourhood was planned there were a variety of density styles included and planned for - not ripping down a home to line a bank account with profits and then move out of the City to leave those behind in the poorly designed neighbourhood. Planning should be done as if one lived in the neighbourhood. Page 73 of 157 7. There will be a loss of light to the neighbourhood due to the size and height of the proposed very dense buildings. 8. Once the property is rezoned, the developer can change the original concept within the approved R6 zoning. The developer is suggesting radical changes to the neighbourhood character. We believe that the City of Kitchener designated thi site Zone R3 because of the Ravine, when the area was first developed for housing. We support providing new, affordable, innovative housing for the residents of Kitchener, but we do not believe that this project demonstrates any of those characteristics. We feel that the environmental impacts, as well as the sightline issues of building 2 huge 3 -story buildings, to replace a small 1 -level single family home should be rejected. We oppose this application for a zone -change and also oppose the proposed plan to build such massive townhouses. Please DO NOT Rezone this site to R6 . Single family construction fits within this neighbourhood and community Respectfully, Sandra Fallis and Steve Ostapchuk, Page 74 of 157 StaffRepoit Development Services Department REPORT TO: Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: November 8, 2021 J KtgR www. kitchenerca SUBMITTED BY: Bustamante, Rosa, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Pinnell, Andrew, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: October 26, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-169 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/010/V/AP Address: 117 & 133 Vanier Drive Owner: 2385235 Ontario Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/010/V/AP for 2385235 Ontario Ltd. be approved in the form shown in the Proposed By-law and Map No. 1 attached to Report DSD -2021-169 as Attachment A; and, That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/0101V/AP, and further, That the Urban Design Brief for 117 & 133 Vanier Drive, prepared by GSP Group, dated April 2021, attached to Report DSD -2021-169 as Attachment B, be endorsed and provide general direction for Site Plan development. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to provide a professional planning recommendation to approve the Zoning By-law Amendment application for subject lands. Community engagement included: o Circulation of a preliminary notice letter to owners of properties within 240 metres of the subject lands; o Installation of a notice sign on the subject lands; o A neighbourhood meeting (NM) held on December 15, 2020; o A postcard advising of the public meeting was circulated to property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands and those who responded to the preliminary circulation and attended the NM; and, o Notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on October 15, 2021. This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 75 of 157 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the subject lands, addressed as 117 & 133 Vanier Drive, is requesting a Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the lands from Residential Three Zone (R-3) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with a Site Specific Provision to add a maximum front yard setback requirement, reduce minimum side yard setbacks, and increase the maximum floor space ratio. BACKGROUND: The owner of the subject lands, 2385235 Ontario Ltd., has submitted an application to the City of Kitchener for a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) that proposes to change the zoning of the subject lands, addressed as 117 & 133 Vanier Drive, to permit multiple residential development in the form of two stacked townhouse blocks (i.e., multiple dwellings) with 36 dwelling units in total. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in By-law 85-1. The main uses permitted under the current zoning of the subject lands are single detached dwellings, duplexes, and small residential care facilities. The subject lands are located on the west side of Vanier Drive, south of the intersection of Vanier Drive / Walton Ave, in the Vanier Planning Community (see Figure 1). The neighbourhood to the south and east is mainly composed of single detached dwellings and duplexes, while the neighbourhood to the north and to the west is composed of low rise apartment buildings. Rockway Public School is located directly across Vanier Drive from the lands. The subject lands are an approximate 8 -minute walk from the Kingsdale Community Centre and Wilson Park, and an approximate 10 -minute walk from the Block Line ION Station. Figure 1 — Location Map: 117 & 133 Vanier Drive Page 76 of 157 t r , r r SUBJECT r ' AREA Y 1E. V 4 w h r r A u Fr . � 4 A Figure 1 — Location Map: 117 & 133 Vanier Drive Page 76 of 157 The subject lands are composed of two lots (i.e., 117 Vanier Drive & 133 Vanier Drive) that were recently consolidated for the purposes of comprehensive development. The lands possess approximately 69.3 metres of frontage on Vanier Drive, a depth ranging between 45 and 57 metres, and are 0.36 hectares (0.88 acres) in area. The lands contain two single detached dwellings which are proposed to be demolished in favour of the proposed development. REPORT: The applicant is requesting approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to change the zoning of the subject lands, addressed as 117 & 133 Vanier Drive, to permit the development of two multiple dwellings, one containing 20 dwelling units and the other containing 16 dwelling units, for a total of 36 units in the form of stacked townhouses (i.e., multiple dwellings — see Figure 2). In September 2021, the owner submitted a Site Plan Application for the proposed development (Application Number SP21/079/V/AP). Approval of the subject ZBA application is required before Site Plan Approval may be granted. The proposed development is oriented to Vanier Drive and complies with the parking regulations of the Zoning By-law, by providing 45 parking spaces, of which 8 spaces are `Electric Vehicle ready'. In addition, the proposal includes 18 secured, long-term bicycle (Class A) parking spaces and 6 short-term (Class B) bicycle parking spaces. l"op-1Z 5 Rd fi 0 I(Rd0)Zonm SO, A..w INZ do lfiodqC vo uao 51"7a (s23pd to d u,pad Areas d,3"7d..4n (3E3.6%/ AaphAlt Ate' 1,3727nr+(dVk4A, n) Gc 'or aior A "_ty An. R d rd - (2,,01 olid - 72,W 1".carlerlecr, ArvnwarrX'y kre phawardarn'.1 W,2,W Vanier Drive I'"aWCkinA fl'IMt'pi,ddnlm I�,1(# f,FpdYufl"2ulw © lC�9d X Nry Ij P�G3 WYi 5w«YkW a��nP �.i• •ter — ��r- — - i 17a 3 (5f 1kd} r of 63 °' S pd t, .�.� n dx F mY 1 V tJe rkr 457 of Cif to %pa—, P,0 J h 1 EB 45Gta JH ...., . 3. I & a u L Nf e A I'tn & Y9 Sp ­ 3.4 05 W, 17 YY .B=ud+Tylpl, 4,41 aufn dlo,,ro 2,4rr p u R:1 ld e k q R q'd (10 nl 6. np ' drr Yxu Yx l4d. 6 f.V B y Aan 1:1 k t, d dl a 11 Y 1 Y ACi4 V Yeah d@ Yd 9 Id I M (.u.:nal9.h a",«w+,iwwed � +mv(s1 yu wr," Wdvd a. Ig dH yd 4 k qd 6I 0 rur4 V Y 6 Pl l rr rfuo 1 fa' d dl urdr uunm of ddr4.W .I p uulyd a rvlW nr«(,mq • p I tl. w u mu .M «v ....._....._..... — _ � dam, 411 LOT 2 u:v"vv MULTI -RESIDENTIAL N I '�trn I U t 36 ■ U', 'v Ily 1009 el. FFF G.,- Fln A- 6147 PW Y dnr NOTES All ddolvr.wiy+, da I'uaad asphalt gurfdM nrite,laln,Alll mdemlk c:reS urrps al prlvodooWs try have rorneW sm4'ace nralvrW Maxddnunr hucg3h4 for toein rald+ " is 10 5 lief"el duce Spaces to have he cheat asphalt to outc,h "el -Walk t}rad+:d. P R p ascxd on flmo areas gdr mdv d pry arclrrtect d+l' Vale al, Idratte patms powi e d (tJd` 9mund flo r un,ls EV Elrllupc;4d7 Vel'i'le Ready Space LO:S ' Figure 2 — Proposed Site Plan t i V V V .. V I— Y ten. W wM w'+iruwY Requested Zoning By-law Amendment Currently, all residential properties in Kitchener are zoned with an 'R -'Zone, under By-law 85-1 (the City's older zoning by-law). In May 2021, new residential zoning categories (i.e., RES zones) were established and added to By-law 2019-051 (the City's newer zoning by-law that emanated from the City's Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law — CRoZBy). However, these new zones have not yet been applied to any residential properties. In the coming months, Planning staff intends to apply the RES zones comprehensively and geographically to all Page 77 of 157 residential properties. Until this occurs, the RES zones may be applied through privately - initiated ZBA applications. In this regard, the owner originally submitted the subject ZBA requesting a zoning category under By-law 85-1, prior to the establishment of RES zones. However, now that RES zones are available, the owner is requesting a corresponding RES zoning category under By-law 2019- 051, to facilitate the above noted Site Plan Application. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the RES -5 Zone, which generally corresponds to the R-6 Zone under By-law 85-1. The RES -5 Zone allows all the uses permitted under the current R-3 Zone, plus semi-detached dwelling, townhouse (both street and cluster), multiple dwelling, lodging house, hospice, and residential care facility (both small and large). In addition, the owner is also requesting a Site Specific Provision to tailor the zoning to suit the existing characteristics of the subject lands, neighbourhood context, and the proposed Site Plan development, as follows: • Add a provision where none exists in the RES -5 Zone, to require a maximum front yard setback of 6.0 metres; • Modify the RES -5 Zone to require a minimum interior side yard setback of 2.5 metres, instead of 3.0 metres; and • Modify the RES -5 Zone to require a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.75, instead of 0.6. The requested Site Specific Provision would ensure that a street wall is established along Vanier Drive that is consistent with existing development on either side of the subject lands. This would assist in ensuring that the neighbourhood character is maintained. It should be noted that each side yard of the proposed Site Plan development would exceed the 3.0 metre side yard setback, except for `pinch points', which require relief via a Site Specific Provision (2.5 metres on the south side and 2.6 metres on the north side). This is because the proposed buildings are oriented to and parallel with Vanier Drive, not the existing side lot lines, which have an irregular angle to the street. The proposed building orientation ensures a consistent streetscape is maintained along Vanier Drive. The average side yard depth is 3.5 metres along the south side and 4.25 metres along the north side. Regarding FSR, the Low Rise Residential designation allows increases to a maximum of 0.75 without an Official Plan Amendment, where it can be demonstrated that the FSR is compatible and meets the general intent of the Official Plan. Planning staff is satisfied that the FSR increase is justified, because it will allow for development that is compatible and in character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Planning Analysis: Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS sets out principles to achieve "healthy, liveable and safe communities". The PPS supports efficient development and land use patterns which optimize the use of land, resources, and public investment in infrastructure and public service facilities (Part IV: Vision for Ontario's Land Use Planning System). Page 78 of 157 The PPS states that healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by a number of factors such as accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet long-term needs (Policy 1.1.1). Furthermore, the PPS states that land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on, for example, densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land and resources; are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available; and are transit -supportive (Policy 1.1.3.2). The requested ZBA would assist in diversifying the housing stock by providing a different housing choice in the Vanier Planning Community, since the immediate neighbourhood is mainly composed of single detached dwellings and low rise apartments. In addition, the requested ZBA will facilitate redevelopment of the subject lands with multiple residential development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and will make use of existing infrastructure. No new roads are needed to service the proposed development and Engineering Services staff has advised that there are no servicing concerns. While the existing zoning is consistent with the PPS, the requested Zoning By-law Amendment is more consistent with the PPS because it achieves more PPS objectives. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan) The Growth Plan supports the achievement of complete communities that are designed to support healthy and active living and meet people's needs for daily living throughout an entire lifetime (1.2.1 Guiding Principles). The Growth Plan seeks to achieve complete communities that feature, for example, a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; provide a diverse range and mix of housing options; expand convenient access to healthy, local, and affordable food options; ensure the development of high quality compact built form, and an attractive and vibrant public realm (Policy 2.2.1.4). The requested ZBA would help to achieve a complete community by facilitating the development of a housing form that is not found in the immediate neighbourhood. The Urban Design Brief (see Attachment B) shows a development concept that achieves high quality compact built form and an attractive contribution the public realm. In addition, the proposed zoning supports a higher density housing option within the Built -Up Area that will help make more efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, trails, roads, and transit and help to achieve density targets. While the existing zoning conforms to the Growth Plan, the requested Zoning By-law Amendment conforms to the Growth Plan better than the current zoning. Regional Official Plan (ROP) The subject lands are located within the Urban Area (Map 3a — Urban Area). 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 (2.D Urban Area Development Policies). Page 79 of 157 Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP states that in reviewing development applications, the Region and/or Area Municipalities will ensure that development occurring within the Urban Area is planned and developed in a manner that: (c) contributes to the creation of complete communities with development patterns, densities and an appropriate mix of land uses that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit.... and (f) respects the scale, physical character and context of established neighbourhoods in areas where reurbanization is planned to occur. In this regard, Planning staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan Urban Structure The subject lands are identified as being within a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the City's Urban Structure (Map 2), because of their proximity (less than 800 metres) to the Block Line ION Station. The MTSA policies of the Official Plan state that until Station Area Plans are completed and the Official Plan is amended accordingly, any development application submitted within an MTSA will be reviewed generally in accordance with the Station Study Areas contained in the City's Planning Around Rapid Transit Station Areas (PARTS) Project Plan and Background Report (Policy 3.C.2.22). It further states that, "in areas that are intended to remain stable, development applications will have regard for the policies included in Sections 4, 11 and 12 and support and maintain the existing character and planned function of the stable area" (Policy 3.C.2.22.b). In 2013, Planning staff prepared draft boundaries for the Block Line Station Area Plan, which propose that the subject lands be considered part of the "Draft Recommended Influence Area", which generally corresponds to those lands intended to support and maintain the existing character and planned function of the stable area. Currently, the Region is conducting a study to confirm all MTSA boundaries. It is anticipated that the subject lands will continue to be within the MTSA boundary upon completion of the study in 2022. Once the boundaries have been confirmed, City Planning staff will undertake the Block Line Station Area Planning exercise, which will involve consultation with a variety of stakeholders, including internal City staff, property owners, residents, external agencies and development interests. The Block Line Station Area Planning exercise will confirm whether the subject lands should continue to be part of the Influence Area or should rather be part of the Focus Area for higher density development. Planning staff suggests that until the Block Line Station Area Plan is completed that the subject lands be considered as part of the Influence Area (Policy 3.C.2.20) and should have regard for Sections 4 (Housing) and 11 (Urban Design) of the Official Plan, noting that Section 12 (Cultural Heritage Resources) does not apply. Land Use Designation The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan (Map 3 — Land Use). The Low Rise Residential land use designation permits a full range of low density housing types, including, for example, single detached dwellings, additional dwelling units, semi- detached dwellings, townhouses, low-rise multiple dwellings, special needs housing. In addition, this designation encourages and supports the mixing and integrating of innovative and different forms of housing to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form. In addition, the land use designation allows a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.6. However, site-specific increases up to 0.75 FSR may be considered where it can be Page 80 of 157 demonstrated that the increase is compatible and meets the general intent of the policies of the Official Plan. Maximum building heights are limited to 3 storeys or 11 metres. The Low Rise Residential designation permits the use of the property for multiple dwellings (e.g., stacked townhouses). The proposal will help to add variety to the housing options in the Vanier Planning Community. In addition, Planning staff is of the opinion that the increased FSR is justified. The proposed massing is compatible with land uses and building forms in the surrounding neighbourhood and the proposed Site Plan development is able to adequately accommodate the necessary facilities to support the development, despite the increase (e.g., vehicular parking, bicycle parking, landscaped area, garbage / recycling units). Housing (Section 4) High -Level Objectives The City's primary objective with respect to housing in the Official Plan is to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life (Objective 4.1.1.). Another key objective is 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 (Objective 4.1.3.). Housing policies of the Official Plan encourage residential intensification and/or redevelopment, including infill opportunities, as a cost-effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure (Policy 4.C.1.6). The Official Plan further states that residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering compatibility (Policy 4.C.1.9.). The requested ZBA increases housing variety by adding a housing form (stacked townhouse units) of which there are no examples within the in the Vanier Planning Community (Policy 4.C.1.12). The requested ZBA would facilitate development of modern stacked townhouse units that reflect a high standard of urban design. Site Plan Application The Official Plan states that "the City may require a site plan, elevation drawings, landscaping plans and any other appropriate plans and/or studies, to support and demonstrate that a proposed development or redevelopment is compatible with respect to built form, architectural design, landscaping, screening and/or buffering"(Policy 4.C.1.7.). Planning staff confirms that in accordance with the Official Plan, through the Site Plan Application that has been submitted, such plans and studies will be reviewed to "address the relationship to adjacent residential development, to ensure compatibility with the existing built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood and to minimize adverse impacts" (Policy 4.C.1.7.). Site Specific Zoning Provision The Official Plan states in Policy 4.C.1.8 that where Site Specific Provisions are requested to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulations will be reviewed to ensure: • Appropriate massing and scale, and compatibility; Page 81 of 157 Similar front yard setbacks to adjacent properties; Sensitivity to exterior areas of adjacent properties and appropriate screening / buffering; and • Functionality in terms of parking and landscaped / amenity area. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested zoning and corresponding Site Plan development will achieve these objectives. Urban Design (Section 11) The Urban Design policies of the Official Plan seek to ensure high quality urban design in the review of all development applications (Policy 11.C.1.1.). The Official Plan authorizes the City to require site specific urban design briefs of applicants in support of development applications (15.D.5.7.). In this regard, the applicant prepared and submitted an Urban Design Brief (UDB) as part of the subject ZBA. The UDB concludes as follows: The Proposed Development offers an attractive, new development of stacked townhouse dwellings in the Kingsdale neighbourhood of Kitchener. The applicant is seeking a Zoning By-law Amendment to allow the development which will contribute to the variety of housing forms present in the neighbourhood. The Site is accessible to a variety of community amenities and transit infrastructure. The Proposed Development fits with the urban design framework of the Official Plan, Urban Design Manual and Zoning By-law by providing a low-density form that enhances the public realm and is compatible with the surrounding area. City Urban Design staff has reviewed the UDB and is satisfied with the UDB. Accordingly, along with the recommendation regarding the ZBA, Planning staff recommends that the UDB be endorsed and provide general direction for the corresponding Site Plan Application. Policy Conclusion Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested ZBA is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good planning. Department and Agency Comments Preliminary circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment was undertaken on August 10, 2020 to applicable City departments and agencies. No significant concerns were identified. It should be noted that detailed urban design matters, tree management, and sustainability matters will be fully addressed through the Site Plan Application process, rather than through the subject ZBA process. A consolidation of comments is attached as Attachment D to this report. The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Zoning By-law amendment: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by: GSP Group, May 2020 Urban Design Brief Prepared by: GSP Group, April 2021 • Functional Servicing Brief Prepared by: Meritech, February 2020 Page 82 of 157 • Salt Management Plan Prepared by: Meritech, February 2020 • Vegetation Management Plan Prepared by: GSP Group, February 19, 2020 • Sustainability Statement Prepared by: GSP Group, May 8, 2020 Community Comments & Staff Responses Preliminary circulation of the ZBA was undertaken on August 10, 2020 to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. It should be noted that this circulation occurred prior to recent staff protocol changes to circulate all occupants (not just owners) within 240 metres. Planning staff received responses from twelve households with respect to the proposed application. These have been attached as Attachment E of this report. In addition, Planning staff hosted a virtual neighbourhood meeting via Zoom on December 15, 2020, in which staff gathered additional community feedback. A summary of the primary concerns, along with staff responses, are provided below: 1. Community Comment: Concern regarding increased traffic in the neighbourhood. Staff Response: The number of trips that is expected to be generated by the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the existing traffic network. Vanier Drive is classified as a Minor Neighbourhood Collector Street and is intended to accommodate 2,000-5,000 vehicles per day. The section of Vanier Drive where the subject lands are located has a daily vehicle average of approximately 2,300 vehicles per day, and an 85' percentile speed of approximately 45 km/h (Data captured in 2017). It should also be noted that Vanier Drive does have speed humps which helps calm neighbourhood traffic (speed humps between Walton Avenue and Shelley Drive will be replaced when surface asphalt is installed after re -construction period). 2. Community Comment: Concern that parking issues in the neighbourhood will be exacerbated. Staff Response: The Site Plan proposal complies with the minimum parking requirements of the current Zoning By-law (By-law 2019-051). Transportation Services Division advises that these parking requirements were created based on in-depth research and studies. Staff does not expect a parking overflow situation. The property is located a straight distance of approximately 550 metres from the Block Line ION Station and is within a Major Transit Station Area. Although the pedestrian path to the station is longer (approx. 900 metres), it remains a walkable distance for most transit users. In addition, the No. 6 GRT bus route is located nearby (280 metre distance at Walton Ave / Courtland Ave E). Residents may contact By-law Enforcement Division for any current parking issues. 3. Community Comment: Concern regarding loss of privacy. Staff Response: Through the ZBA, a Site Specific Provision is proposed that requires the buildings to be no further than 6.0 metres from Vanier Drive. This ensures that proposed buildings are Page 83 of 157 located as far away as possible from the existing low-rise apartment building (140 Kipling Ave) and single detached dwelling (156 Kipling Ave) to the rear. In this regard, it should be noted that the existing single detached dwellings on the subject lands are currently located approximately 7-10 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the proposed buildings will be set back approximately 25-36 metres. This setback will assist in providing privacy to properties to the rear as well as allowing for adequate on-site amenity space. Although side yard setback reductions are requested to accommodate pinch points, the average side yard setbacks are greater than the 3.0 metre minimum. The proposed building height is no more than 11.0 metres and complies with the maximum building height requirement in the requested RES -5 Zone (i.e., 11.0 metres). The existing R-3 Zone has a similar maximum building height requirement of 10.5 metres. Through the Site Plan Application, the applicant is proposing a 2.0 metre high fence along the rear and side property lines (around the rear yard parking lot). This fence will help to provide privacy to adjacent residences, including preventing headlight glare into rear and side yards, and is slightly taller than what the zoning would otherwise require (1.8 metres). In addition, tree preservation and enhancement will be fully addressed through the Site Plan process, which may assist with privacy. 4. Community Comment: Concern regarding additional multiple dwellings in the area. Staff Response: The Vanier Planning Community does not contain any stacked townhouse dwellings. The proposal will allow a new form of housing which will assist in diversifying the housing stock and providing more housing choice, during the present housing crisis. The proposed development may allow residents of the Vanier Planning Community the ability to remain in their neighbourhood, who might otherwise need to relocate due to financial or property maintenance reasons associated with lower density development. It should also be noted that the current Low Rise Residential land use designation of the area permits low rise housing types, including multiple dwellings. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal represents an excellent opportunity for new housing in the neighbourhood. 5. Community Comment: Concern regarding decreased property values. Staff Response: It is difficult for Planning staff to comment on the impact that the proposed development may have on the value of nearby properties. Staff understands that MPAC assesses homes based on as many as 200 different factors ranging from the size of the dwelling and lot and the 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 residents, it is not a land use planning matter. Planning staff focuses on whether the development represents good planning with respect to the community as a whole. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, Planning staff is supportive of the requested ZBA. Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good planning. Planning staff notes that the proposal represents intensification on a scale that is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood. In addition, this proposal is in keeping with the City's Official Plan and an Official Plan Amendment is not required to facilitate Page 84 of 157 the proposal. Accordingly, staff recommends that the ZBA be approved and that the Urban Design Brief be endorsed. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. A notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in August 2020. A postcard advising of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee (PSIC) meeting was circulated to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands and those who responded to the preliminary circulation. In addition, notice of the PSIC meeting was posted in The Record on October 15, 2021 (see Attachment C for a copy of the Notice). CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was originally circulated to property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands on August 10, 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 12 households. Planning staff hosted a virtual neighbourhood meeting via Zoom on December 15, 2020, in which staff gathered additional community feedback. Comments from the community are included in Attachment E. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 Growth Plan, 2020 • Regional Official Plan • City of Kitchener Official Plan City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 REVIEWED BY: Stevenson, Garett — Manager, Development Review APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Zoning By-law, including Map No. 1 Attachment B — Urban Design Brief Attachment C — Newspaper Notice Attachment D — Department & Agency Comments Attachment E — Community Comments Page 85 of 157 Attachment A PROPOSED BY — LAW OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend both By-law 85-1, as amended, and By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-laws for the City of Kitchener — 2385235 Ontario Ltd. — 117 and 133 Vanier Drive) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Numbers 171 and 172 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended by removing 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. 2. Schedule Numbers 171 and 172 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby further amended by removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Schedule Numbers 171 and 172 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 are hereby amended by adding hereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, attached hereto, and by zoning Area 1 lands thereafter as Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (183). 4. Schedule Numbers 171 and 172 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 are hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 5. Section 19 to By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Site Specific Provision (183) thereto as follows: "(183) Within the lands zoned RES -5 and shown as affected by this provision on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 171 and 172 of Appendix A, the following shall apply: a) The maximum front yard setback shall be 6 metres; b) The minimum interior side yard setback shall be 2.5 metres; and Page 86 of 157 day of c) The maximum floor space ratio shall be 0.75." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this , 2021. Mayor Clerk Page 87 of 157 �z MASSEY AVE z �a LU uuiI I uui�ullI umii um� I I -0 m �uuu �9 IIIIIIII m VIII uw I �u �i IIIVuiu � I Wim T IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VW �m IIIIIIII� to N Ir . Ifi ui ZO N m ,Z J O W Q W W LU > z LL - O J j U Q W U Z W CC W _ W � J W CC U) �Q o Z J _ -. LU Z cn 2 O W Z N CY rn N C)o Z Q r 00 u7 C f W _ ^ / C) M W TO ZO Z c O N C N0 O ZZ LU N 7:, Z Z W Z Q O o 0 W Z_ F Z W W Q O Z W J F ZO z IN LL J m N W O Z W W D- F Q Z J N O ZLu Z 0 C U W • 00'If �GW w f�O J W Q CL UONQQwONZON Of W Z O W Lof LU Of LL C _ U i J— 0 J U W' 2 O (n 2 0 X Z W C z a m Q �j } LL 2E W H LL (n Z 0 C W z w � Z z Q Q Q Q o (D Q Z LU C] Q� pU) T Q O Q W Z Z Z Z F F- U LU W m LC F Lh op W Z W > C] C] C] C] N X 7 W W LLx T `n N X W w W W co W a W m LU Z g W O W W 0 J Q J< W (D N jr cl' �� J c (n X> T2 LY Z O W `-- Q Q LL=) F�� 3: r N M M V CO } m U W 2 2 CL' CY w of m W= MASSEY AVE z �a LU uuiI I uui�ullI umii um� I I -0 m �uuu �9 IIIIIIII m VIII uw I �u �i IIIVuiu � I Wim T IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VW �m IIIIIIII� to N Ir . Ifi ui ZO N m ,Z J O W Q W W LU > z LL - O J j U Q W U Z W CC W _ W � J W CC U) �Q o Z J _ -. LU Z cn 2 O W Z N CY rn N C)o Z Q r 00 NLU Q W Q Z O � O ^ / C) m LLi wax LL m N O J N O ZZ C) o 00 N z w Qoo CD F_ 2E (D U O LU m �GW ,� Z LL z W ? o C7 o O N LU z a W p O Z ow�� O o O w a N L a �� J Z W W Z (7oaw � Q Z Z W W W LLx �� , y� LU C)'+, OULL� ;z " X> W z LU �� Q N U) i C) W C] (A W uRum� z W¢ uuuum U_ �u Z Lb oumumuuuuuuuum G a W > O w aLU Z z- W a �.-♦a J um�� CID V 0 w \�� z U o JP 0 LL 9k 37no-gHos cc r N m O O LJJ N O ZZ C) o 00 N C14 ^ li Of P LU LU m �GW LU C:) Of 1k" W o LU �Q� IPJLn � � cwn o LU Q 9k 37no-gHos cc r J m O LJJ muum m� O ZZ Q i C14 ^ li Lf) M M ------� ---- QN 2 N L Z z a 1k" CO N CY T ti 0 00 00 W (a a_ r— LO 0 0') 00 ca a_ 20 8 JUE)WqOeIIV 4 - CD E _0 C: CD E < co 0 0 0 cy) c 'E 0 0 (D N 20 8 JUE)WqOeIIV m ° ° ° ° ° ° N ° N ° ° ° ° m ° m ° ° ° m ° cn ° ° cn a� cu cu c 0 :D Co _ 0 Eo ca M cs o a) m LL a�r7 06 o U) _ EL c 0C L6 a) c/) U c� a cry U T7 0 a:3 C/)o cl� T70 N 3 CN L6 U) C3E Cf) L6 < 0 Co o cf) C/) E0 � 0 -0 as a) of > �= E vCi r- 0 a, � .D 0 r- r4 m U) am ca 06 c r� _:3 0 Q - D) m < 60 3 _ _ a- U) tf CD 0 (10 0 0 `6U) 2 U)- e� o o 0 U 0 LIJ is 06 QS En as d -,t L6 c6 rl� 77 cl (i ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° cn cu cu c ra c LL ® 2 dt6 oocu :3 0 0 2- W U) 0 CL o m -j < - D) m < 60 3 _ _ a- U) tf CD 0 (10 0 0 `6U) 2 U)- e� o o 0 U 0 LIJ is 06 QS En as d -,t r— LO 0 0-) a) 0) V -0 Co uo) 0) E -0 CD - a) a) -C 0 7 E c a) o (D> C: 0 5 CU M a) CD E Co > a) a) 0- -0 - 0 0- < CL o 0 w 0 0 0 (D 0 cu 0 M >Icwco)o as ® Q)D)—.0 _0 Q- o < DL U) a) 0 cr 0 0) U) > 0 A2 m 0 U) 0 CU N0- CL 0 (D 0 (D F= V) m < !E 0 1-- "c 0 0 T) U) = 0U) cu C: a) -; a) -0 U) co Z > N® CD w 0 a) C o a) 70 U) 0 0 Cl 0 0 0) 0 a) E 0 LZ U) E E w — m o CL 0'Fu a) Lo E a) 0 a) 0 0 M- C) 0 0 CL N 2 > CLC3 " a- ou ou m o < IL U) co 0 cl r— LO 0 0-) 9 r - LO 0 N 0-) a_ C: U) >1 CD CD (n -Fu CUeaa 'a 0) CU2 !E (D 0 (D r- 'E 0 U)cu cu cn a) 2 c 0 0- 0 Of m > W < CD _0 Li- 0 0- - 0 U C14 0 0 a) (n 0 :3 W 0 CN '§ m -0 0 - - :3 :3 CD U) 0 a) Iz U) U) r- 0 0 N cn U- 10 C) --r 0) _0 ?: 0 -0 0 0) cn 0 0 tf 0 C,4 U) r- a ) C=) 04 M :3 cn -j _0 a) 0 -C a) U) CU 0 0- Co C: cli _0 a) (n r 0 " I-- C) 4� -C o- 2 0) 0 I_- cn -0 0 -4, 0 a) (D 06 0 a) -0 cn Lli M ci :3 a) P a) 0 C) 04 -r 0 U) a) 0� a) C)- m 0 U) cn < " — a) CL - CD a) CL (D C: (D 0 U) 'n M a) cn CI)Eli " U) !E 0 c- -Fa lcm: C m a) 0 0 CD m cn 0 0 — CD - -E -0 C C)) (D U -0 0 S W tf 0 U) 0 U) a) (D CO CN (3) (3) = CD 0 C: 0 0 N co a) z :3 m CL ci o -r- (0 CL -a CO cN F- -a Q) E a) 0 Cl) o CL :D a) 0 0 0 0 0 :3 0 0 0 0 CL (f) r- 0 I- re -0 Cl) F® cu F- -0 'At le -Z a 0 -Z 0 o a) x a) E a) Co CL U) UA> a 0 a) (1) (n U)d - 0 72 c: E = a) -0 0 L c;) E 0 _0 L) (D 0 a) 0- cn a) .C- 0 o CU -,:� 0- 1 0 -0 C: a) 4- 0 C-) (D a) a) a) 0 0 C: U) 0 0 a® 0 CL E r CL c: m a) cn 2 a) o L)a)C6 w C a3 cn M 0 c a) 0 (D (n 2 U) -0 (n 0 . - c- -a 0a) — 0-- m Z V) a) (n a) 0 -0 a) a) q- -- 0 LO 0--c a) 0) co - 0 :3 (n 0 Lo a) Z-- C) 0 M a) Fn o a) EL -r- m ip Q 0 -0 0 0- was - 0a) if CL ®0 0) (n C: co a) CD 0 CD C14 cu 0 a- 0) E U) a) - — > U) CD cn a) a) (n :3 CD m a) Q) x a) o a) iT) :3 0 (n 0 0 V) w Z :3 U) x U) 2 CD a) a) 0 0 D-_0 M m a) a- 0 D -Q Q) > C: .2) a) a) a) (D _r_ c- -r -r- - a) a) CO M -r- - V) 76 0 0 a) a) :�Il cm w a) - CD a) 0) = W 0 W C W U) —0 a) -i-- o o E r- m C13 M 04 � (D - a) U) en N a) N 75 70 a) C: a) L) .- C: 0- 0) a) 0 -0 a) Q c m o 0 a) C: a) -0 a) C: z .- a) U) - 0 0- 0 -(D 'Cri Z 0 -0 "C: - L5 :3 U) — E > Q) cu 0 0 0 U C: cn 0 CD C: CL -c- ZD m Fn F co 0 U) m U) m o m o co a) a) cn a) !E CL 0) Lo U) 0 cQ 0 0.cn Ca w 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a) L) 0 M > CL 0 a- < < U) a) ®0 as a) -0 CJ 0 0 0 o U) UJ 0- 9 r - LO 0 N 0-) a_ r— LO 0 Cf) 0-) a_ — 0 L�- 0 0 0 0 > 00 00 c 0 -0 0) >, �O — :3 a �O 0 = E C) a; 0 a) CL a) a) cn a) (n 0 cu m (D cu 0 3: > 00 (D cu M M CY) a) 04 m 0 C-) -C m cn a) U- c (D a) CD (0 >1 — 4- 0 < It F= Lia) CD _0 0) (n a) CD -0 0 m (D CL 0- (n M0 m -0 �w 0" 2 U) 0 a) 0 a) >, m (D 4- a) = > cu CL =— (D M U) C: r- = U) o —0 (D U) cn 0 m (1) :E co M m 3: 0 (D M -0 (n M 0- �r, 0 70 0 —0 C -0 C m cn 0 0 r_ a) m a) 0 a) C: (n c 0 Im CL 0 r: U) a) C a) 0 E 0 a) 0 0 c C: 0 0 c m 0 0 >(D 0 a) m U)LOU) 0 08 < u a) > 0) Im (D2 m 0 — 0Fn LZ C: 0) C: CL 0 Z, a) 0 �p Q (D :3 a) CL C: C: o O 0 M X 0 0 U) m > LU C) > of CN r— LO 0 Cf) 0-) a_ r— LO 0 " 0 c-0 o C: 0 0 > 0 _0 C: — M 0 (D -Fz -0 (D 0 -0 E 0 z 4- 0 -ia (M ) 0 ip m 0 It — m — 0 :3 E i) o� cu 0) C: U) (D E m U) E T CO o > < CM# m a) — 0 C,i. -0 0- E m U- CUcu C .— -0 CD CD 0 -0 w > w (n a) o 0) 0 O)o 0 =1 0 > L) m 0- 0 E m— — U) e - (D V) U) U) 0 m CD C: a) (n —> M < Z) > (1) T F= U) m x c 0 M o > o m 3: U) o 00 LI) (D 0 a) C) < a) 0 cn -ac- >, m M C) U) 0) co M LO LO a) 0 -E CL 0 CD c 0 0 m ?: U) 0 U) a) 0) 'r (1) _0 o E = c o —M M (D 0 > < a) > a) — cn CO --j U) 0 < 0 L) F= 2 0 CL (z 0 _0 0♦ CL C) Z3 U - 0 0) 'D 0 = > CU 0 r 0 0 CO -Lf 0 cn p CO (D ca °% -- — 0 a m -&-- cm Go) (1) 0 0 .9 M: U) 0) - —w M (3) —"— Z3 5 -0 I w 0 0 0 0 0 0 M a) 0 > U) 0 .— < -0 a) 0 co E co - 0) E (n cn < c 0 -E 0) 0 C: 0 X 4- 0 0 m :3 U) U) _rZ CL :3 0 (D E CD 0) C) U) -0 0) a) 3: co Z) (p m > 0 LO C: 0 -0 < :3 6 Ile " o -o 0- E 0>m a) = U) 06 — �: 0 L- o It -I 0 -= ,�w a) 3: >, o >0 00- < 0 () n (D a) (D >a a) o- 0 0 U) o C)- (D -0 Q a) = , z r- U) 0 -�z " 0 p 0 0 M 0 m 0) cn :3 ui M L C = a) JL -0 -W 0 0 "E -Se 0 , . T r— LO 0 " 0 c-0 o C: 0 0 > 0 _0 C: — M 0 (D -Fz -0 (D 0 -0 E C: 0 z 4- 0 -ia ip -E It E — 0 (D 0) C: U) (D E m M a) E Co CO o > a) — 0 c) E CUcu CD CD 0 -0 w > w (n a) 0 > L) m 0 E m— — C/) C: 0 0 f o C: — U) o > mE E 0 m x c 0 M o .— x o 0 — 3: U) o 00 LI) (D 0 a) 0 cn >, (D 0 -E CL 0 c 0 c 0 m ?: > 0) 'r (1) _0 m E 0 a) w 2 U) CL LD CL C) 0 U - 'D 0 0 r 0 CO ca °% -- — 0 a m -&-- cm Go) (1) 0 U) w—o M - —w a) —"— Z3 5 -0 I _r 0 0 0) c 0 U) cy) cu 0 co < -0 U) (1) - 0 U) (D E 0 -E c: 0 C: 0 X 4- 0 0 m :3 U) U) _rZ 0 :3 = a) E C) U) -0 0) a) 3: 0 > 06 -0 < :3 Ile " 0 -o 0- E 0>m a) = EL — �: 0 L- It -I 0 -= ,�w a) 3: >, o >0 00- < 0 () >, Z CL o m M a) = , z r- -�z " 0 p 0 0 m 0) cn :3 ui M L C = a) JL -0 -W 0 0 "E -Se 0 , . T o cy) m a) (D L.: 0 E E 0 C -0 WO) c U) — 0 - m > 0 U) E P a) o ciT) 0 a) L) a) -0 CL 0 m E a) -a c om 00 < z F-- z o E m U) C) LU m < r— LO 0 ti LO 0 LO 0 rn 0 o c� X_ Q U) w CL ti LO 0 rn a� co a_ ti LO 0 ti rn a� co a_ ti LO 0 00 rn a� co a_ 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Z lz 0 cu C: 0 0 0 0 U) 0� (n 0 0 n- 0 o P) 0 (n o) -o 0 co D o :3 uj 0 _0 (3) 0 D = r- 0 U) (1) (D 0 C: r M 0 M J -0 -r- > U) 0 Ch -2 U) Q) Q -6 -0 -0 2) 0) c =3 0 m 0 5 0) CL 0 70 (D U) U) 0 0 -0 x 0 0 a) U) 0 0 (D C: 0) a) 0 FD -0 U) C: m 0 _0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Z lz 0 cu C: 0 0 0 0 U) 0� (n 0 0 n- 0 o P) 0 (n o) -o 0 co D o :3 uj 0 _0 (3) 0 D = r- 0 U) (1) (D 0 C: r M 0 M J -0 -r- > U) 0 Ch -2 U) Q) Q Q) Q 4p sit 6 U) c 0 _0 U) 0 CD r— Ln 0 T- 0 cu 0— 2 0 -0 32 a) ,z 0 C: in r - > cn (a cn M 0 CU > 0 > 0 _Ile c E c 0 c oE CL r ® -0 a) 0 0 0 m — 0 0 (3) c t�- co 0 — c " 4) E o 0 CD = _0 CU M LO 0 'W a 0 — as °5 c —0 E m 0) Lo -0 CD .0 CU D 0 a C: CL En a! 0 w m 0 C -)o CN E > m En > ;6 CN (D n CD — 0 (D cu 1" = — -0 o E CD M U) (D 4- 0) (n 0) a) 0) 0 0 0 0 (D 0) -0 m > 0 CL o -0 cu 0 a) a) > 0 0 > 0 M CU a) CD CL 0) a)E m -a CD a) 00 co Cn-am-C(Da) 0 —-a— a) W — 70-OE00:30 m M—a O<Ocm 0 w 2 w:3 o E0 co § C: cu m co0 (n - -Fu w a) (D E 0 U) M (n 0 M 0 0 0 E E L) 0 0 3: o 0 cu M CL 0 m 0 0- 4- 0 — o M >, cn — 0 0 70 0to ■- 4 CD r— Ln 0 T- 0 cu 0— r— LO 0 N 0 0Cu - ------ --------------- "'I IN it '17 oil rl w f r:3 A 4bli 't7 E CA 13 4h J u ti LO 0 CO 0 a� M Q) ,E ti LO 0 LO 0 a� M n El N w 0 0 0) U) 0 0 0 0 (D as �14 a) , = _0 Co LD > (n 0 1: (D as 0 .0 (D CU 0 .-2 co ........... a) . .. ........ :3 Qu 0) L) as U) > cy.) (D (D > U) (D :L- >1 0 U) 12 Gr>a) 0 I ........... m ciC) 0 CD 0 0 (n U) M a) M > cn M C)) _0 ........... m m 0 a) co 0 C: a) w 0 C) 0) cu 0 :3 0 — M 75 L-- (u 0 — cn -0 a) Co �: 0 0- cn > CD C.) U) 06 . ........ >, CD cu........... a) r . .. ........ :::3 m. ........ . ..... co - U) 0) -0 0 .n 0) ...... ........... a) cs 0 ip U) a) E % 2 0 % CU > :3 -0 CD 0 cn a) > 0 E as — CD > m, M, Y.. 0 CD (D Ll 0 m L) M M 0 (n jZ Es.5 CL 0 CL M o >cu ao E (D 0 U) (3) 4-- 0 0 0 LO 0 0 a) , = _0 Co LD > (n 0 1: (D as 0 CU 0 .-2 co 0) L) as U) (D (D > as U) 0 co C: (n U) M >, M > M C)) m 0 a) co 0 C: w 0 C) 0) cu 0 :3 0 — M 75 L-- -7— — cn -0 a) Co �: 0 0- cn > CD C.) U) 06 cn >, CD ca r 0) co - U) (D co as cs > > CU > :3 -0 - r— -0 > 0 E E r— Ln 0 C-0 0 cu 0— r— LO 7- 4.- 0 r - CD M n Q as CL cra-0 c 0 -0 4- 0 0 _00 c cn a w Q) CD " U) 0 0 0 0 0 a) E 0 c: a) 0 0 0 0 a) 03 ca U) Q) C.) 0 4- a) �p 0 0 M M 0 (L) 0) > c 0 m 0 0 0 0 co CL LD 0 a) C " -�D (n 0- M CL 0 CL R m U) > L:- (n >, C: (n U) U 0 > CD (n 0 CD — CM CD o — 0 a) 0 Q) Z as M tm 0- c- cy, M> C: .2 — (n > 70 :3 a) U) c CL 0 U) �: 0 cn 2 (D 0 _0 -i6 a) En 0 CY) c u Iz -0 0) 0 :3 r- 0) 0no CN -Z -0 o :3�z a) :3 Co (n _Z3 0 0 0 0 a) a cn a) — = as 0- c, C .> m 76 !E E -0 Cc cr, — (n M (n 0 CL — 0 0 a) r_ 0U) .— En M cn u 0 cn a) T- 0 z;C)- — 0- :3 m o o U) 0) (n CD C/) M 0 — > cn 0 0) — — �3 a) w r - a) = (n a) a) -rj > 0 0- a) a) m > 0 0 cm 0- as 0 z co 0 M W -M E r- r_: — — m Q) CD CD U) - CL CU CD M 0) (D cn 0- 0- 0) -C 0- 0 > Q) M 0 M 0 — M Co Q)(.)Q0) Q zoo"> 2 a) 0 E a) 2 a) 0 CO cn L- CD CY) (3) (1) z 4 q) 42 Co CC 2 E cu -F CL zhe 0 -C m co 0 cn C14 r: ui (n w -0 (D 0 c — -0 -0 0 m -0 .0 co C: C c 0 > o 0 0 c w c 0 b a) m (n 0 0- 0) 0 CU , C—n :3 .— o w m U) -0 U) 0 > > T) CL _0 0 -0 0 U) C) 0 0 .0 0) a) cn 0) 0 0 0 0- o 04 (j — 0 0 C 0) c ca 0 W U) 0 (o U) > a) M . 0 C: -0 -0 4 Cl) — 0 j;= 0 CL E U) (3):3 CD 4m CD 4= 0 U) 0) CD U) 0 :3 co cc a) C/) > .0 0 0) cp C: -D .9 0) —(u o M V) o C-) U) (D cl, co -C m N Cc Co c�a 0) CL cn M C: o 0 = r- 0 cn .— r a) " = a) m o c C C: U) to 4- 0 U .— 0 N c U) — 0) 0 CTJ u) 2 S E m 0 (n CD :L -- (D CU (n :3 x Cf) -0 -0 = a) 0 0 0 q: 0) — 0 — , (n CL c c E w a) 06 0 0 0 0 :3 a- C: 0 U) -0 0 0 — 0 0 cu 0 CD CL 0 0 a) C- CL U)0 (D a) CL U) cn tl3cn c� W W c > (n .2 w 0 0 L5 M 0 > -C- 4=0 0 = 0 *0- r- -0 w CL = a- ED C—V (S —0 E 4 m m ■ CD 7 T7 17 LO 0 Ln r— Ln 0 00 0 cu 0— r— LO 7- 4-- 0 (3) 0) r- -0 o -0 U) a) o >N -0 " 0) C — . — (3) 0 rn cu c :t-- C: — 0) CD cn — CD -- CU U) M o o- E a) E CO CU r tf 5 0 V L) a) (n a) a) 0) 0 U) En 0 t�) m cu a) CD 0 CL CL 0 0 -90Om 2 E L 0 0 , 0- D- U) o CU " > 10 E '.0 zzz CU a) o (n C: LZ cn -Fo c) N0 W (D 0 -0 M M CL — M < M CL U) 0 a) m C CD 0 00 10 Q) (D _0 0) a) >, — 0 m Co = E 0 -0Im IL cu -0 C: 00 m — — m U) LO u m 0 00 -0 Q) co 0 m < 0 0 L C a) co CM a) cu a) 0 cz (D 0) — mo a) . U) cu a) cQ (D C/) o- r_ 0 E 0 > a) 0 0 o m is 0- N -0 0 0 cn C: 0 0 0 0- CL -�5 '§ '!5 (1) 4) C: C: < :- a 0 o o M (1) N CD coN co 0 Cl) -0 cu -0 (D m C -L Q) o 0 03 0) 0)Im'Ef 0 �ID cn 0 > o 0) , _0 U) — co U) - - -0 Q) _0 0 -0 a) (n CO -0 w a) c: .— 0 -L- .— a) �5 2 X a) -0 Do- .® -0 I Lo (n Z3 m 03 :3 0 >, C " 0) . W -Q e 0 a :3 (n C = 0) r- a) m2 "®, -C 0 0 a) _0 m :3 -0 CO 0 0 J- 6 0 C: 0 a) m 0 0 0 0 0 " -a Q) CO a) cn c 0 r- D a) 0) cn (D _ 2-- c M QT r- -a o 0 (a a) - 0 W 0 0 (n 0 -0 w 0 LD 12 0 U) CD :lz! .2 Q) :z 0 a) F= 0 r- 0 x 0 — :3 0 -0 0 a) CD C: CD ®0 cu CL CL 0 0 0 m T) 40- w co Q) C-- CL w c z >1 (a -0 a) a) C: 0) . c: — u o — CD -C (D (n I p az Q) m U) a) 0 = — M L C: a) n U) D I �: C o 0 0- 0 (n a) E -0 0) o P -j o C) m 0 -0 " 0 U) rN Q) co CU OL M 4? 0 U) a) " r_ -j -0 -0 m CD -0 a) -C Q) m Q) L:- cz Q) a) a) a) cu CD 0 0) C: 0 m a -Z 0 k Q) m -0 -0 C: 0- Lo M —W a) I -z 0) 0 -sz: -0) - cz - cu >Fn -.0 0 lu 2 -2 Q) 0 M M r 0 (n cu m -�-z 0 a) 0- 70 C/) as -2 . a)5 OL a) 76 7B 'a L) 0 Z3 0 E p m as Qa cz cn C: ca 1:a) > Lr- Q 0 (n Fn (D F 5 Q — o 0 C- a) " a> a a 00 ■ I +- 0 0 0 -�e — 0 a) b® 0 4- 0 a) a) m — J-- a) p U) a) m M a) 0) a) c CD 0 0) a) C: a) m m a) a a 00 ■ I +- 0 0 o: -�e — 0 a) 0 4- 0 a) a) m — J-- a) p G a) m -E 0) c CD 0 0 c co a) 0) U) m E :t -- a) U) 0 :3 :3 0 CD c: (D >, U) a) CE _0 -C vC: 0 C: -0 0 m C) 0) 5, CoM .2 0- CD En CL cn c -0 a) M cn a) 0 CL > cu 0) 0 CL a) :D aw a) C: 76 as a) m r_ 0 — 0 CL 0 :3 E in 0 - a) C:co) c c: -Q" OEWW a) U) C: > 0 '— a) in W 0 C) f a) c P 0 4— 0 0- U) a) ®0 M - in a) CL C: Im _00) c a) _0 .2 " m 2 a- o = 0 — a) E -a a) 0 m 0 0 CD CL 0 w a) (n j c W w CL E (D -sr cn m C: E C: Fn -a :3 0 C: r_ Cz r :6 E u 0 u 0 () -C 0 := -C: a) -0 r— Ln 0 C) cu 0— C - -a -0) C >, = 0 0 0) 0-®= 0 . (3) (3) C 0 0 -�a w i52 cu CU 0 c: - M3 : m c: .- (D 0 6- > Co M 0 C M 0) co o cn m E 0 5 , m E o co 0 -0 (D 0- 0 0 a) -a f > C 0 CJ cn a (D E M C o :D — > -0 W 0 > 2 2 0 o 0 CL w :3 F (n - 0 -0 CD (n M w 0 0 0) -0 a) " a) -0 0 :3 0 6 :3 w cu 0 -Q 0 I-_ 0 -0 0 0 0 0 a) 0) (D _0 0 0 0 0 w 0 -0 CL m 0) 0 0- X a) M C a) Ln ID 0 U) a) a) CL — a) -0 c: cn m 0 cn a) 4- co _C cc 0 -0 0 cn E cn 0 0 (n .— m -0 M CL 0 CU (n .- M 'c- co (D 0 0 -0 0 - -0 In a) -C >, " 0- w C >, cu 0- 0 (M - C .�z = -0 0 0 0 m '§ m Fn a) CL w U) ai (n a) cu U) co :3 a- -C - 0 - mc M 0 a) 07 (n U) a) >1 w CU 0- _0 C (D a) 0 a) 0 cm tn (n -0 U) (D a) cz cn 0- w 3: 0) En cu 0 0 0 X 0 VI 0 -0 ci ,cf (n 0 a) > 0 c) E cu cn 0 0) 0 0 n M E 0 E 0 0 UJ _0 Fn 0) C CU CD a) (D E cD U) 0) r -a .C6 C co _0 2 -0 M CD (D 0 -C 0 M 0 >1 w w cry m o 0 cn U) 0 .0 -0 0 -0 F= ® 0 '- > W CL 0 :tf C W M a) 0) C-) 0 0 0 0 L) r _0 CU C -0 cn > -C C3) :3 cl) 0 a) 0 - cu cn co (o 0 C c a) :3 0) :3 > 7� (D C) w (n = CL T C x o o 0 0 0- ca a) 0) 0 0 a) CL CU a) a) 0 m C M E .5 (n -T .0 0- 2 C m c: (D C o 0 r -C m- E 0 0 - U) 2 a) -0 m C m m 4- m > a) CL - (n Q- 0 (3) - z Z eq m vi wowo 0) a) 0 FL 0 4 - OL CD c U) 0 :3 W _0 >< a) (D 07 a) 0 a) 70 -0 0 cn U) cn a5 = 0 a) 0 C3) M, L W U) V)cr CD 0) 0 0 D) E _0 cn CD -0 M 0 cu (n 0 x C — > a) 0 a) 0 o > m C 0 0- :3 w 0 0 CU 0 0 (D 0 >% 70 U) cn C) — m 0 0 (D -0 -0 -0 E -0 (n cn 0 cm (D as _0 0) C cc vi = 4) 0 J'� 0 m o m 0 0) C _0 -0 C m 0 0 cn -Fu M 0 " _0 0 cm -0 0 m U)MO:2 r- 4- M 0) 0) M-Q)C ID -0 (D -0 0 a) V) :3 -0 a) _0 0 0 a) -0 _0 :3 C cn - E _0 > 0 0) a) CU u) 'a W -0 U) M 0) 0 0 0 C CDC :3 (n (n C cn a) 0 C w 0 0- cu > a) 0 I- , m . M > >, > a) EL- (h r 0 a) (n D ( - - cn - U) lz 4- C -0 'n -0 m > C 0 a) 0) -5 5, m C 0 0) (n (D a) 0 0 0 -0 c: m r- CL 0 co o — o C 0 - 0 L) a) 0 a) > 0) 0 Lo :3 0- r_- -C (D cf) -0 -0 C En > U) > :3 0 o - .- 0- - 0 a) M L m cn 0 Fn -2 .m = m U) 76 CL 0- cn cn -F5 -C _j > 0 -0 0 0 -0 a) r- a) Iz C a) > , -0 (D I C - CU 0) CL > -0 - M .0 0 CL 0) (3) -.2 0 w (1) C (D M 0 a) 0 -V) :3 0 c ) 0 :E 72 0- c/) m 0- CL Fn C 0 0 -2 r - LO 7- 4.- 0 M 0- c En - cn U) — 0) ®0 CD " a) 4— 0 "t " 0 . 1 (D 0 CD - -0 CD —2 71 a) a) (n 0 N C) (D C: 0) cm cl U) U) (D 0) V) CD C: 0 (D 0) CL CU 0 — r Q) (D >CD (1) m 0 a) — -0 . — U) -- L) -Fz '(nu (D _0 a) = 0) 0 U) — a) co o -E UO) - — C = C i7) > -0 0 0 _0 a") �E CL o o 3: 5 V) :3 W . 5 0 > C 0 m 0 M CM (D 2L 0- N r- C: C:0 U) m -0 (D -0 0) 0 0 c- 0 5, cvs 0 a) 0 cm Q) D C: r 0) C: o .— (D U) m 0 CD -0 CD c C: 0 — = a) " , a) CM 0 a) o = 0 0 -0 o :3 cn a) U) >1 E (D _0 -0 Co a) m U) a) -0 cu I- a) 0 _lz CU C: a) >, m " U) C: CL a) = :3 Lo CU 0 U) d �: C: a) cn CY) W :3 %J m eN 0 — :3 CU a) 70 U) C: cn 0 0 0) (D 0) a) _0 4 CD 0 > E 0 0- a ® _0 0 co U) a) a) a) a) — cz a) -0 :3 cn cn co 'a > 0 -0 W 0 w 0a) 0 .(D E as ® -2 (D " -0 cn -0 M 0 CL E >1 — 0 cm W c 0 0 CL 0 (na)= cn cn 0 0 0 CL w m U) a) a) 2 cn 75 0 — M 2 o — -0 CL) p E CL CD - M co - j ui 0 r- - — -o > co 0 CD co -0 U) Co En :D (D M 0 F- CD w 0 m 0 0 0 cn > > (D a) Co :3 Z -0 '5 co M 0 m 5- E `0 (D -0 'E 0 Q) -r- (n (D 0 r 0 0 (Q cn >1 '— > -0 r4 -lZ 0 < (D 0 N a) — -a C: o > 0 !E �p CU a) a) 0 M 0 - rZ 0 (D 0) -Fu 0 a) 0 c M o < o A-- CL c m co U) F® D- U) cFm —(n -E (D U) -2 S c- > D- co ry) rl) luj r— LO 7- 4.- 0 CN w c :� _0 0 _0 w w ,-; 0 >-, >, a) U) (1) ®0 0) as 0 a) a) C: (3) �i C-) c = 0 = 0 U) Q) F cn En 0) C: :3 cn a) = 0 m 0 7FD - ID 0) .— c 0 a) a) (n !E a) L- = 0 > cn -0 co " (n a) C; 0 -C ?— 0 0 E — C/i c a) CL (n r_ a) 0 0 CU .1; a) -0 m cn a) CL r N Fn m CL M U) cn c CU a) 0) 0) — (b a) a) C: (D a- M -0 cn cn 0 .— = -0 0- U) -0 CL 0 m co C: U) CD 0 w 0 -0 cu 0 (n Q) m a) a) co aco 0 0 W cn < cn -a a) 0) C: > a) (n 0 0 — U) 0 M 0 0 co 0 a) > CU r- 0 �E to a) zo cn >, m M L) M a) 0 0 co 0 — - w = 0 D- co L) 0 0 a) 0 - C: C: C: a) o a) m cu 0- 0 o Y) cn 0 M -0 0 0 0 01) :3 > _0 E f 0 .— CU o > (D a) c -0 0 -Fu Co cn C: (D 0 E 0 L) — :3 cn F= (n CU > C- a) r- a) Cn cn M 0 r CD a) 0 a) -j cn a) co ® CL -0 cn 0 r m CU 'E a) 0 a) a) -0 m r- 0 70 0 0 co !E = — 1 -Z 0 -0 -0 CL cc C: (6 0 = 0 — Co CL a o -0 a) m _0 C: 'o a) a) ® CL 0) ?: 0 0 cn C: 0) Fn as _0 r_ 0 -0 a) co C: 0 m �a m a) a) 0) 0 MC: :3 a) 0 0-- Co U) o Q) a) (n CD Q) M C- co u 0 0 ID 'a_L m i7) 0 �m C'u < 0) CL —co m 9L M CL r- o a) w CO cL CD cL a) to 2 > a) o 0 C14 C-; wi 0) en CU 0) L) a) ® 4- a) a) -C 0) C o 0 (n -0 Z to m cfj -0 0 CL 0 a) En E M en 0 -0 m > 2 4— Co U) -0 a) C: 0 w > 0 m r- 0 = a) 0CLS (D 0 a} cu to 0 cn a) -0 a) a) m -C -0 0 0 w w > 0 L) 0 .65 E 0 a) M m 0 cl, cn a) a) . U) _0 > 0 —0 E 0- ai 'Fn 0 co (D a) 0 cc L > CD 0) 0 M C: 0- r- a) CU 0) �o o 0 — C: :a < r — C� 0 = -ca 0 CY) 0 > > c: c: cn m w (n co 0) co -0 Fn co 0 - 0) — m a) > 0 -0 -0 Q) IL Q 0) 'a CD F= cn -o TO D c 0 M 4- > m :3 CD jT) 0 0 m E r CCS %- cu m 0 -0 m 0 m .0— CU (n 0 c 0 0 — �o 0 = — 0 0 0 C:) 0 > C.) -15 = tj CO cz > >, CL cu > 0 0 .4- co 0 0 m ui > a) co >1 CD > C 0 0 -0 0- 0 E C-) co a) < cu co cm > a) o m 0 C: _lz r- E co 0 M 0 61 co > a co Q) L) C) m 0 m a) in CD U a) cn EL M 0) 0 -0 0 0 0 a) (D 0 0 (n m m r_ E q Lo 0 _0 CL -0 c m " > CL w w 0 -0 C CZ cn a) > J-- U) in -0 as M CU �+- 0 cu 0 0 0 w a) U) a) a) c 0 0 " by a) r- 0 w 0 0 a) V) _0 0 '15 -E a) 'S E E 0 -o r_ a) crs mo > M 0 a) 0 0 A-Z (D m E a) 0 r- C: r_ cn cu m m o m 0- -0 m Z o m -2 w co a) r— Ln 0 co cu 0- BOOKMEK13olu r— Lr) 0 M n (3) (n _0 V) C) 0 IZ- cn = Iz- q 0) m m -C — = (3) Q) C) E o w 0 0 co 0 C: 0 0 = 0 E E (D CD 0 0 0 U) CD cL E Z in CU 0) C: Ln CD C: c -mac M >, 0 CL 0 co (n E 0 0 Fn 0 _0 m — a) () En > 0 a) F= 0 _0 M +- 0 a) = > M CD cu C: CD V) C: > CU 0 C) CD >, M >1 CD L> a) (n — 0 L) 7t — C a) U) a) = -0 — a) 0 " (n ?: a) :3 0- 0 — 0 tf M = a) = — 0- 0 -0 2 > 0 0 En -C a) CL :3 cr M CU U) :31L c 0 >1 , Ra) a) -C 0 U) a) >1 (D 0 (D m > :3 co (n > _0 = m cn 0 0 0 " = E a) C: 0 0 M ?: 0 0 0 0 (D -E o D a) a) 0 0 0 E E 0 r_ U) &_- co -2 0 0 > 0 CL E CL 0 C'4 0 a) CL 0 E 0- 0 0 Z C co Mo — -0 c) LO 0 E LO 0 > 0 E o > 0 0) 0 0 0 cn 3: cn 0 C: 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 'E as CU -0 �a_0 C14 -0 " -0 > (D U) -0 4) 0 = o M0) M 3� 0 (n 0 E N as 0 0) (n a) ® 0 m E-9 cn :3c Qom} 0 a) F= U) 2 o �o w r- 1p m m 0 m E c U) CD rD n. cn -a 0 -0 _0 (n .(no 0 LD a) CU N C C: m a) (n a) CU _r_ _0 CD 0 .0 co a) -0 0 co a) a) CL (n CD E > 0 0 C: 0 0- 0 cru73 2 m UJ 0 _0 (D (n CL rn E IL T E Cf) C) cn (D cn —w 0 a) E CL M —CL cn E CD CD CD c: o 0 >, 0 o M > 0 -0 cn C: CL E .0 0 U) x 0 . . .... 0 o _0 0 `4 E C: .50; U) % Q C14 0 (n E o E E (D Q C) !I m -0 — — (n C: (D o -0 CL CL 0 E 0 -0 (D 0) Uj 0) In m > (D CD rD aT E u 0) 0 a) m (D 0 cn CD �,o �o ca E Fn o — c 0 S 4 Cl) -0 -0 U) E W E rn n. -0 m cn — CD Gey0 ui� M M CO 0 0 0- 0 CD ' 0 a) 0 -0 U) C: CL 0 0 CD 0 m 0 4, C 0 - -t ca r F. Cl. 5 0 a) 0 r w 0 C. cu CL -0 ca r - m 0 0 -0 C: a) cu W F C-. 0 W E 0 U) " 0 E C: 0 cn -a cn 0 I 0 E C) o CD 0 -0 > co cf) 0- co C: m cn E 0 co -0 M (D CD 0 0 = 0 cn 0 — -5; a) > 0 CL 0 70 0 0- 0 W ® 0 0- m to 0) ) 0- 0 rZ cn vi C) LO 0 m -a cn cn m U) (D 0 M D- 0 o E CD E 0 0q= .w cu I-- m as (n 0 0 rn 'n 0 4- 0 m a) a) D 0 a) a) >a) CD > .5 0 = 0- m0 as 0- - CD — a) > a) 0 a) 'E 0 0 O)o a) U) 2 a) 0 cj) 0 CD 2 0 — v 0 CL 0 > a) -0 = a) U) 6 I-- 'o M 0 -0 w _0 0) 4— 0 a) 4— 0 (n E a) a) U) !E m a) c m (n > — a) rn 0 0E < > CU 0- C) 0 0 U) a) M 0 E e0 cn 0 (n m — U) , _0 12 75 a) a) a) -0 -0 — 0 0 m — -C a) (n 0 a) cn -E 0 0 (n :E a) E a) 0 D ?: :3 w E m 76 (n E cn co 9 0 J-- > 0 I— = 0 E — C) :3 — > a) > m A) a) 0 0 cn e� r U) M En 3: (n co cn 0 a) cn C) a) —(n 1p cu o 70 a) a) 16 -0 a) D- CL cn m U) cu cu = Ea) ch o a) _0 02 0) -0 0 0) a) 0 > = m 0 a) .- 04 >1 Aff tf -0 0 W a) > 'a -C a) 0 a) CL U) 0 0 0 (n m 0 D) 0- 0 > CL .,e C: CD a) E E o ui () 0 a) m L) 0 u-) 0- U) iT) a) a) t5 — a) a) CN a) .(D c 0 a) 75 -E c)- — CL 0 — 76 > a) cu a) a) C,4 z 0 a) a) 2 CD > L) a) o c " > cL .7 C) LP o- 0 0 o o 0 a) CL E — a) .- c (n 0 a) a) 0 — C) _0 C: cq > CD tm E a) _0 a) 0 m " C:) -0 C) a) (n 0 4— U) 0 m 0 C: a) 0 0 a) 0) 0- 0 U5 C: M 04 0 >1 04 a) -0 0 cn o >1 75 — C IZ- I (D E C: U) 0 C: C: _0 CL 0 C: a) CC) ED (D (n 0 " :3 " 0- (D 0- :3 -0 M a) M U) m 0 MO= E "0 :3 0 0 0 m CL 0 a) C) > Cm (n D.COOOE (D "MOOE'" � 0">-O rowc 0 (Dc:00-c =m a)"-t69 =0 0:3 =0- 0 -T U) 0 0- -0 -0 0 -7- 0 F- =— 0 cu 0 0 r- C: U) F- E —0 N , F- a) r— Ln 0 cu n � I L ) I ; � � � � � � � � � � � � � � / r - LO 0 ca 0— �m �✓% Sa �V s / mvv y C6 uj 0 0 1Z 10 lo 0101"N" QiP C7 ti Ln 0 co a� cu 0- ti LO 0 rn o z LU LLJ 0 0 CL -NOZ '4Z ti LO 0 0 N r N t6 0— O -)o C: M L- (1) M a _0 (D -�a 0 _0 a) 0 Q) L- 0) C: W 0 m E 0 > 0 0 0# 4 0 > 0 (D M > u > > o U) _0 0 V C: 0 0 0 0 QD) C: V) CL -0 0 LO) 0 (0 a) 0 C 0 0 0 (D 0 a) (D -FD -0 U) C: M LO 0 • CU CL = C: C: 0) 70 x a) a) - o _0 m 0 m 0 M 0 -0 0 M > Q) 0 (1) Cj) m > M co C) 0 E ma) 0 E (D 0 = 0 0 (D -g-- L) (3) - 0Cf) 0 - E .- U) L) 0+- 0 LL r 03 0 c > 0 m m C-)• �p m 0) In 0 0 0 U) c o :3 0 (D = CL -0 0 o o C: r- 0 -0 0 0 0 w -0 M w 0 0 _0 a) 01 m 0 o 0 0 0 cn •C: cn UM) 0 a) = 0 0 C 0 o -0 (D CD M -0 0 0 0 o w 0 0 4M 0 m U) > > (D 0 :3 — 4a CL 2 0 q) > 0 0 '0 0 -0 -E t :f 0 0 N (1) Q- 0 - - ca. -7- 0 0 = co a ) m " L) c: E _0 (D c: r- - (D c') 0 n F=r a) 15 0 cn " m CL - 0 L- 0 U- a) 0 0 CL o (D C: a) (n = 0 cn o (D :3 - -0 0 CU 0 0 (n U) 0) m = :3 -C C: _0 m 0 'Z-- = (n m ( D _0 - --p; E Ex a) x m C: (n (D (n CL c'), 'D .0 F= m 0 a) M M S -0 (n M 0 L9 3: p " (1) o 2 a) -0 C) CL :3 _0 0- c 0 0 =3 (D r- cn a) U) m c- -0 a) a)o E a) < .r- w o 0 CD m - > o O -)o C: a)- 0 D _0 (D -�a O> 0 w _0 (D m E 0 # (D 4 0 > (D 0 U) _0 0 V C: 0 0 0 0 QD) M L CL IL LO) 0 (0 a) 0 C 0 0- (D 0 a) (D -FD 0 m LO • L) m (D a) 'CE: — U > x vi 0 0 0 (D 0 = 0 = - 0Cf) C: 0 0 - 75 .- U) 0+- 0 LL r 03 �p m 0) In o — U) o o C: r- W M M 0 _0 0 m (D U) (D CD M -0 Ln a) 0 0 0 4M 0 m U) 0 :3 — 4a CL 2 0 M '0 0 cn C: 0 N (1) Q- 0 o C: CD c C) (D c') F=r a) o o a) CU o (D E 0 (n U) N 4- a) a) - --p; E Ex a) x E - m U) (n 21- m 0 a) m M S (D 2) w M L9 3: p " (1) o 2 a) -0 CL :3 _0 0- c 0 0 r- 0 = U) m > -0 a) a)o E a) < .r- CD m - > o cn _0 U) C14 CM O -)o C: a)- 0 D _0 (D 0 O> (D E 0 # (D 4 0 > 0 (D 0 U) 0 0 V C: 0 0 0 QD) m LO) 0 a) 0 (D 0 a) (D -FD 0 • L) m (D a) 'CE: — U > Ei I r— LO 0 N N ca n r— LO 0 ce) N ca n C: U) L) ab o 0 > ip 0 U) 0) CL CL — m o 0 m m m co a) -0 M C: m 0 >, Lo a) 23) a) U) A_ En a) > (1) 2 a) ca a) = Z� = U) cn C: 0 tp0 a) _0 0 a) 043 a) co 0 E 0 E m M ME CL 0 0 >, 00 0 > :3 > 0 0) CD E a) 0 CL C: 0= CY) 0 0 -o E CD U) 0 cu 0 a) w CL 0 a) E a) E coa 0 0- o 0) c 0- o CU o — ® ca 0 CD > 0) a) > E > m E U -0 a) U) a) -0 — _0 0 N co NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Attachment C Vanier117 Et 133 �� K<11-11�,, u..i Il. tlii IIS IL : :J bII:: e Ili n g II II oto ii cep II::; � �� [IJ a 'I a �,..°u a �: a � : . FI '" • r 1,. Time: 01 Location: • Jo-v--iew the stalr- report, agenda, meeting details or to appear as a delegation, visit: g For more information application, including your appeal 1/, f *r r MI tions Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x 7668 and rew.pinnet[@ kitchener.ca .w� ! �' �► .� ,` "�PITA 6 also requested thatwould require; • A maximum front yard setback of 6.0 metres; • A minimum interior side yard setback of ® ; and • A maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.75. Page 124 of 157 Attachment D Andrew Pinnell From: Victoria Grohn Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 5:24 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (117-133 Vanier Drive) Attachments: Dept -Agency Letter.pdf Hi Andrew, No cultural heritage issues or concerns. Victoria Victoria Grohn Planner (Heritage) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 victoria.grohn(aa)kitchener.ca From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 4:14 PM To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division <DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson @kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Lesley MacDonald <Lesley.MacDonald@kitchener.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Coo per@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; MTO - Allan Hodgins (allan.hodgins@ontario.ca) <allan.hodgins@ontario.ca>; MTO - Bonnie Baker <Bonnie.L.Baker@ontario.ca>; Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk <Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven. Ryder@ kitchener.ca>; LIW - SA <Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (117-133 Vanier Drive) Please see attached. Questions or comments should be directed to Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca l 1�I�Ol�I Z Page 125 of 157 City of Kitchener COMMENT FORM Project Address: 117-133 Vanier Drive Date of Meeting: n/a Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/010/V/AP 2385235 Ontario Ltd., Theadore Connolly, and Brian Gile Comments Of: Urban Design Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: lenore.ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: September 8, 2020 /j Urban Design Report 117-133 Vanier Drive prepared by` S roup for Gilcon Holdings Inc. dated April 2020 A Revised Urban Design Report is required.. 1. pdf pg. 4 - The KitchenerOffical P161 f* es an Urban Design Report as an "urban design document that /0„ . %,, may be required of an owner/applicant to demonstrate how a development application implements the City's Urban Design Manual ';.which'~ does not require Council approval'. The UDR will be endorsed by /D// Council as part`ofth /M application 2. pdf pg. 4 - therefdrences to>the supporting studies and materials should be updated to reflect the final documents.referenced -. 3. pdf pg. �13 4 1,4The'bicycle rack calculations should be revised to reflect 2019-051 Class A and Class ,B bicycle par'ki.ng'requirements 15 (A) + 6 (B). The Class A spaces will need to be accommodated ither"indoors or in bike lockers. 4. pdf .134. , 2 also pdf pg.33 Section 7.1— the noted building height of 10.8m and 11.2m to the parapet is beyond the maximum building height permitted in By-law 85-1 of 10.5m. By-law 2019- 051 regulations for Res -5 reference 11.0m and a maximum of 3 storeys; site specific regulations may be required or a different zoning category 5. pdf pg. 13 4.2 — private patio areas for all at -grade units should be included in the site design 6. pdf pg. 13-18 4.2 and 4.3 Built Form and Architectural Expression. The preliminary building elevations require revisions to incorporate many of the elements shown on the precedent images; articulated facades (side and rear elevations); generous window openings; coordinated building elements e.g. incongruous peaked rear entrances on a contemporary building. Although final A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 126 of 157 building elevations will be approved through site plan approval, the proposed design and proportions of various materials need to be refined and revised in the Urban Design Report; an example of a more coherent design is attached below and does not have any greater proportions of 'expensive materials'. Vegetation Management Plan L0.0 prepa 1. The submitted plan is incomplete hd 2020 is required. Emailed GSP/Group ji, �//i Flat / of j ;P Group no rev# date 19 February 2020 % 0 d submission consistent with email discussions in June A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 127 of 157 Internal memo Development Services Department Kt f Nr_R www.kitchener.ca Date: September 24, 2020 To: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, Kitchener Planning From: Carrie Musselman, Senior Environmental Planner, Kitchener Planning cc: Lenore Ross, Urban Designer, Kitchener Planning Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment ZBA20/010/V/AP 117 & 133 Vanier Drive 2385235 Ontario Ltd. (Theadore Connolly, and Brian Giles) Supporting • Vegetation Management Plan (Dwg. L0.0). 19 February 2020 by GSP Group. Studies: • Planning Justification Report, 117 to 133 Vanier Drive. May 2020 by GSP Group. I have reviewed the supporting studies as noted above that have been submitted as part of a complete application for a zoning bylaw amendment at 117 & 133 Vanier Drive, to permit 36 stacked townhouse units with associated surface parking facilities and a private common amenity area and provide the following: 1) There are no natural heritage features or functions of local, Regional, Provincial or national significance on or adjacent to the subject property. Neither are there any areas regulated by the G RCA. 2) As per the pre -submission consultation comments, a General Vegetation Overview (GVO) would be required as part of a complete application for the ZBA. We advised at that time that the proponent should combine the requirements of the GVO and the requirements of the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan (aka Tree Management Plan, Urban Design Manual - Part C, Section 13) as the more site specific detail of would be required for the Site Plan application. a) It is noted that only a Vegetation Management Plan that would be required at the site plan stage has been submitted. b) It is recommended that the Planning Justification Report include a component that would address the City's Tree Management Policy requirements for the GVO. c) It is recommended that the Vegetation Management Plan be amended to accurately show the driplines of the trees; identify the species, condition of the tree, impact of development on the tree and show the existing and proposed grades. The methods for protection must be clearly identified and accurately shown on the plan. If approved, the proposed ZBA will permit a redevelopment that will encompass the majority of the site and the possibility of tree retention will be nominal. Regards, Carrie Musselman, B.Sc., Dip. Senior Environmental Planner Page 128 of 157 1 Internal memoL-E IUTNER Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca Date: September 24, 2020 To: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, Kitchener Planning From: Carrie Musselman, Senior Environmental Planner, Kitchener Planning cc: Lenore Ross, Urban Designer, Kitchener Planning Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment ZBA20/010/V/AP 117 & 133 Vanier Drive 2385235 Ontario Ltd. (Theadore Connolly, and Brian Giles) Supporting • Application for Zoning By-law Amendment — Sustainability Statement, 117 to 133 Studies: Vanier Drive, dated 8 May 2020, prepared by Kristen Barisdale, MCIP, RPP at GSP Group. I have reviewed the sustainability statement as noted above that has been submitted as part of a complete application for a zoning bylaw amendment at 117 & 133 Vanier Drive, to permit 36 stacked townhouse units with associated surface parking facilities and a private common amenity area and provide the following: 1) Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is progressive, going forward all developments will need to include more energy reduction measures as the City (and Region) strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target. — This new development should identify target(s) and measures beyond OBC that would further energy conservation, generation, operation and could be of benefit for future residents/ users. A means of doing this would be to incorporate components of Energy Star, R-2000, Built Green, Passive House, LEED or Net Zero to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 2) An updated Sustainability Statement will be required. We would advise the applicant to explore and confirm which options would be best suited to the site. Potential items to include in a revised statement could be: — A'Bird-Friendly Building Design' — Independent metering of energy and water usage for units — Parking area that includes permeable pavers — A'water conservation system' such as grey water recycling, rainwater harvesting systems, cisterns or rain barrels being incorporated into the development — Using low or no VOC paints and finishes to improve air quality — Incorporating several components of Energy Star, R-2000, Built Green, Passive House, LEED or Net Zero that would conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. — Proving electrical vehicle parking and/or charging. — Installing solar — If not installing solar, the roof should be designed and built to be solar ready. — Having a light / white colour roof for solar reflectivity / reduced heat absorption. Page 129 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Steven Ryder Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:53 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: shawn_callon@wrdsb.ca Subject: RE: 117 & 133 Vanier Drive - Parking Reduction Hi Andrew, No concerns or issues with the parking justification letter that Kristen submitted, it is acceptable for the application. Also, given the school areas in the vicinity of this proposed development, if any issues arise during the construction of the development, as well as once it is completed and occupied, the school and the Board should feel free to let Transportation staff know and we can investigate appropriately. I can reply directly to Kristen's email if you would like, let me know! Regards, Steven Ryder, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext 71521 TTY. 1-866-969-9994 1 Steven. R ergkitchener.ca kA Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 4:40 PM To: Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca> Cc: shawn_callon@wrdsb.ca Subject: FW: 117 & 133 Vanier Drive - Parking Reduction Hi Steven, Please let me know your thoughts when you've had a chance to review. Thanks and have a great weekend. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell(o�kitchener.ca 0"A IC I l J 1 Page 130 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Katie Wood Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:39 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: 117-133 Vanier Drive Hey Andrew, I have had a chance to review the Functional Servicing Report that was submitted with this ZC application. I can confirm that Engineering and KU can support the zone change from R3 -R6. I had the Info SWMM model run the sanitary flows proposed (1.1L/s) and there are no concerns identified as a capacity restriction in the area. Please note that I am in support of the ZC based on the sanitary and water flows. Some of the other items identified in the report (like stormwater management) must be updated with the current requirements through the site plan process. Therefore, the servicing report has not been approved. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else from me. Sincerely, Katie Wood C.E.T. Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood @kitchener.ca .R Tube Page 131 of 157 CITY DEPARTMENT & AGENCY COMMENT FORM Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/010N/AP Address: 117 & 133 Vanier Drive Owner: 2385235 Ontario Ltd., Theadore Connolly, and Brian Giles If you have NO concerns or comments, please complete, detach and return to the writer. Department/Agency Al"I � z� Date I Please return to: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner Planning Division City Hall, 6'h floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4G7 Email: andrew.pin nell@kitchener.ca Name of Representative (please print) — P 7) Signature of resentative Page 132 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Parmi Takk Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:56 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: David Paetz Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (117-133 Vanier Drive) Attachments: Dept -Agency Letter.pdf Hi Andrew, We have no concerns related to this zoning amendment. The existing gas services to each of the properties will need to be abandoned prior to the commencement of construction/demolition activities, Thanks, Parmi 1 ,_„ Page 133 of 157 Region of Waterloo Andrew Pinnell Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Pinnell, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 1-226-752-8622 File: C14/2/20010 November 6, 2020 Re: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 20/010 117-133 Vanier Drive GSP Group Inc. on behalf of 2385235 Ontario Ltd. (Theodore Connolly and Brian Giles) CITY OF KITCHENER GSP Group Inc. has submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 117-133 Vanier Drive (subject lands) in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing 36 stacked townhouse units within two buildings (Multiple Residential Buildings). Each building is proposed to be 3.5 storeys in height. Parking is proposed as at grade parking at the rear of the site. The site is located in the `Urban Area' of the City of Kitchener and is designated 'Built - Up Area' within the Regional Official Plan. The site is located in a Major Transit Station Area of the City of Kitchener and is designated Low Rise Residential within the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The site is currently zoned Residential 3 (R3) Zone in the City of Kitchener Zoning By- law. The applicant is proposing a site specific Zoning By -Law Amendment to rezone the site from the Residential 3 (R3) Zone to a Residential 6 (R6) Zone to permit the stacked townhouses on site with special provisions to permit a maximum front yard setback of 6m and to permit a maximum floor space ratio of 0.75. The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following: Document Number: 3454935 Version: 1 Page 134 of 157 Regional Comments Consistency with Provincial Legislation and Regional Official Plan Conformity The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the site is located in a Major Transit Station Area and designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Regional staff understand that the proposal contributes to the density in the Built -Up Area and that the density proposed through this development will exceed 160 persons and jobs/ha required within the Major transit Station Area. Within the Urban Area, the Region directs the majority of growth to the Urban Growth Centers, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors, Major Local Nodes and Urban Designated Greenfield Areas. These areas are planned to have a more compact form with a mix of employment, housing and services in close proximity of each other and higher frequency transit. Regional staff understand that the development proposal is located within 500-800 metres of an ION stop and therefore the Region is supportive of increased density within the Major Transit Station Areas as it supports the Planned Community Structure established within the ROP. The Region wishes to advise the applicant of the following technical comments related to the proposal: Corridor Planning Environmental Noise: Highway 7/8 and Courtland Avenue (RR #53) are located 322 metres and 194 metres from the proposed development respectively. Based on distance and the intervening land uses between these roads/highways and the subject lands, environmental noise from Highway 7/8 and Courtland Avenue is not anticipated. Please note that the development may be impacted from traffic noise on Vanier Drive. Therefore, the Region proposes the following conditions, which are to be implemented through a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener as a Regional Condition of a future plan of condominium application: a) The proposed residential buildings/units shall be designed with the provision of air conditioning. b) All residential units within the buildings shall be advised of the following Noise Warning Clause(s) through the registered agreement with the City of Kitchener, Condominium Declaration and Offers of Purchase and Sale/Lease/Rental Agreements: Noise Warning Clause "A".- "The A"."The purchasers/tenants are advised.that the sound levels due to increasing traffic on Vanier Drive / Courtland Avenue / Highway 7/8 may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level Document Number: 3454935 Version: 1 Page 135 of 157 limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)." Noise Warning Clause "C".- "This C"."This unit has been designed with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)." The above conditions shall be implemented through the design and construction of the buildings and secured through a development agreement between the developer and the City of Kitchener through a Regional Condition of the future Plan of Condominium or consent application. In addition, the Noise Warning Clauses must be included in all purchase and sale/lease/rental agreements and be included in the Condominium Declaration. Alternatively, the Owner shall undertake and implement a detailed environmental noise study. Transit Planning: Please be advised that GRT service on Vanier Drive has been removed with the ION launch and replaced with a revised Route 6 on Courtland Avenue. Therefore, the closest transit stop to this development is on Courtland Avenue at the Walton/Hayward intersection, approximately 450m from the proposed development. To improve access to the transit stop noted above, Regional staff recommend that the City of Kitchener install a sidewalk along Vanier Drive that connects to the sidewalk on Walton Avenue to improve pedestrian access to/from the transit stop on Courtland Avenue. . Region of Waterloo International Airport: These lands are located within the Approach Surface of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and are subject to Airport Zoning and Federal Aviation Regulations. Furthermore, the Owners and/or tenants of the development will be subject to aircraft noise and visual presence from the aircrafts. An agreement and noise warning clause(s) to address airport noise shall be required through the future plan of condominium application. For additional information regarding Airport Zoning and Federal Aviation Regulations, please contact Kevin Campbell at 519.648.2256 ext. 8511 or by email at Kcampbell(a-)_regionofwaterloo.ca. Risk Management/Clean Water Act The subject lands are within the Part IV area under the Clean Water Act and within Wellhead Protection Sensitive Area 8 (WPSA 8) of the Grand River Source Protection Plan therefore, a valid Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Notice) is required as part of the complete application for the Zoning By-law Amendment. Document Number: 3454935 Version: 1 Page 136 of 157 Please be advised that a Risk Management Plan for storm water management may be required if any engineered infiltration features are proposed. Please be advised that the Region of Waterloo does not support infiltrating salty runoff from parking lots in chloride contributing areas, and requires applicants to design storm water management systems that avoid this approach. Please visit the Region's TAPS website at: https://taps.regionofwaterloo.ca to determine all applicable requirements and contact the Risk Management Official at rmo(aD_regionofwaterloo.ca as required. In addition, please consider the timeframe required to negotiate a Risk Management Plan, as the Notice shall not be issued until a signed Risk Management Plan is complete. Please note that the Notice must be completed in full and accurately describe the project. An incomplete or incorrect notice may cause a delay in processing the application. Fees By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the Zoning By- law Review fee of $1,150.00. General Comments and next steps Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. The Region has no objection to the application, subject to receipt of a signed and valid Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance. The signed valid Source Protection Plan Compliance must be received to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo prior to a recommendation being made to City of Kitchener Council. Further, please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner C. 2385235 Ontario Ltd. C/O Ted Connolly (Owner) GSP Group Inc. C/O Kristen Barisdale (Applicant) Document Number: 3454935 Version: 1 Page 137 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Risk Management Official<RiskManag ementOfficial@reg ionofwaterloo.ca> Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 5:35 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Melissa Mohr Cc: Rebecca McIntosh; Joginder Bhatia Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Regional Comments regarding ZBA 20-010 (117-133 Vanier Street) Hi Andrew, Regarding the Zone Change application - a Section 59 Notice was submitted today by the applicant with a date that was within one year of the initial submission of the Zone Change application, so we can consider it valid. The Notice should have been submitted and included with the application well before now, but this is a procedural matter. I trust that is what you need. Eric Thuss Risk Management Official I Region of Waterloo region ofwaterloo.ca/sourceprotection Page 138 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Naomi Moore <nmoore@grandriver.ca> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 10:00 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning By-law Amendment (117-133 Vanier Drive) Good morning Andrew, The subject property is not regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. As such, we will not be providing comments on this application. Kind regards, Naomi Naomi Moore Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road PO Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1R5W6 519.621.2763 ext. 2293 www.arandriver.ca Page 139 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Shawn Callon <shawn_callon@wrdsb.ca> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:08 AM To: Planning Cc: Andrew Pinnell; Christine Kompter Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (117-133 Vanier Drive) Hi Andrew, The Waterloo Region District School Board has no comments on or concerns with this application. Thanks, Shawn Callon Principal Planner On Tuesday, 11 August 2020 16:14:16 UTC -4, Christine Kompter wrote: Please see attached. Questions or comments should be directed to Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca EUMENEREE i 1 Page 140 of 157 Attachment E Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 6:57 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] comments on ZBA20/010/N/AP To Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca Our comments regarding the zoning by-law amendment ZBA20/010/V/AP are as follows, Increasing the density in a long established(60+years), appropriately zoned, single family homes community doesn't provide any benefits to existing homeowners but does present the probability of negative consequences such as, more parking problems, in particular on Vanier Dr. any overflow parking will have to be accommodated by less available on- street parking now that bicycle lanes have been created so surrounding residential streets will also feel the pressure. Possible resulting increased enrollment at Rockway Public School seems incompatible with the increased pressure for smaller class sizes. None of the above noted consequences would be likely to result if these properties were used for several single family homes or even for moderately sized multiple dwellings but nowhere near 36 units. In addition to our objection to this particular much higher density residence, we also are concerned about the precedent it appears to set, particularly with a site specific zoning regulation, which we presume to mean allowing changes that do not conform to regular zoning, which would tend to make any larger than average lot(meaning many corner lots in this area) a very likely target for multiple dwelling unit status. Yours truly 102 Massey Ave Kitchener, Ont N2C 1M5 Page 141 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 10:36 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Building Project at 117 and 133 Vanier Drive Hello Andrew, I appreciate the opportunity to voice my thoughts and concerns with regard to this project. I own 156 Kipling Avenue which backs directly onto this project at 117 and 133 Vanier Drive. I oppose this building project as it stands. Three and a half storey buildings directly adjacent to my property and others close by would take away any and all privacy presently enjoyed. Proposed tenants would have direct line of site into our windows and yards. The numerous apartment buildings already in the direct vicinity is quite enough. The police constantly patrol the streets now in an attempt to manage the crime and drug related issues with regard to the apartments next door. The existing apartments in our area are two and a half storeys each which already creates an untenable density issue. Adding another floor and the extra apartments that it represents is unreasonable. Please keep me informed with regard to this project. Thank you, Page 142 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 11:47 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: John Gazzola Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Re -Zoning amendment 117 & 133 Vanier Drive ZBA20/010/V/AP Hi Andrew, Thank you for the response. Lots of information to read and understand. Easier to explain to the neighbours as we have informal chit chats up and down the street. Yes, we understand it's a proposal by the owner and has been for awhile and while it may not be proposal by the City, you are the final answer to this and input from the neighbourhood it affects. But depending on the where things are proposed, it can fall on deaf ears. Example: our Vanier Street reconstruction: The city had its mind made up to do the changes and than had the nerve to slip in bicycle lanes that are not used because they think the new sidewalk is easier. Now we have to wait another year to get the speed bumps back and have weekly racing 24/7 In schools zone that are not posted. But traffic can put Radar Speed Signs on Wilson but not on Vanier where people use it a freeway to by-pass the LRT. But back to the proposal. Right now there is no need for any virtual meeting but when the time comes you may want to think of a venue where people can safely social distance, listen and take part so that everyone is on the same page. Not everyone is computer savvy. Sincerely, From: Andrew Pinnell Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 10:27 AM To Cc: John Gazzola Subject: RE: Re -Zoning amendment 117 & 133 Vanier Drive ZBA20/010/V/AP NOW Thanks for your interest in this proposal. Please keep in mind that this is a proposal by a private owner — this is not being proposed by the City. In response to your below inquiry, please see the below response: • The regulations for the residential zones you have requested can be found here. ® The definitions can be found here. ® At this early stage (zone change stage), the applicant/owner does not need to confirm/proposed details such as ownership/rental, number of bedrooms, etc; however, I took the liberty to call the owner and ask him. He told me that it is his intention that the development will be condominiumized. He also advised that most of the units are 1 -bedroom units, though there are some 2 -bedroom units. ® Regarding parking, the applicant will either have to meet minimum zoning requirements or justify a parking reduction as part of this zone change application (parking is currently under review). I hope this response helps. If you have more questions, please let me know and I would be pleased to set up a virtual meeting with you. Page 143 of 157 Sincerely, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener , 519-741-2200 x7668 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell kitchener.ca +` 3 From: Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 2:20 PM To: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca> Cc: John Gazzola <John.Gazzola@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re -Zoning amendment 117 & 133 Vanier Drive ZBA20/010/V/AP Mr. Andrew Pinnell. It was only a matter of time till we saw this coming. Before I do anything, I would like specific definitions of exactly what Residential Three Zone is?... single detached dwellings, Residential Four Zone.. I am guessing is semi-detached; Residential Six Zone condos/townhomes or multi plex? Residential Nine Zone... Large apartment buildings. If you can clarify this it would help. What you have failed to do is to give definition to all the homes along Vanier Drive and the neighbouring streets of Massey, Boniface, Shelley, Kipling and Highpark Ave. of the number of Duplexes' that are on these streets legal and not .... Now this may take a bit of homework on your part but it is very much part of our daily lives within this section of neighbourhood. Besides giving very little detail on what 36 Stacked townhouse are: Rental, Owned, 2-3-4 bedroom, the potential for the multiple of cars that will impact this residential area. More comments are coming but for now this is what is needed. Look forward to your reply with the answers that have been requested. Sincerely, Page 144 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:09 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application ZBA20/010/V/AP I strongly object to the zone change to R-6 so 32 stacked town -houses can be built on that small, shallow area. The proposed number will not allow adequate parking for the possible 72+ cars that would be in the complex. Traffic from the driveway will make it more dangerous for the students of Rockway School as well as the children in the complex as the driveway will be very near the corner of Vanier and Walton. As bike lanes have been added, parking removed from one side of Vanier Dr., and most of the space in front of the proposed complex "school -zoning", no extra street parking will be available for the complex or for parents to drop off students for the school. The height of the proposed buildings is higher than the apartments behind on Kipling and certainly doesn't fit in with the surrounding bungalow homes. If the zoning is approved I feel the number of townhomes must be reduced so the children in the neighborhood can be safe. Page 145 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: WORM Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:42 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning bylaw I am not in agreement for additional 36 town houses to be built on Vanier. My big concern is with the additional traffic / pollution. Vanier is already a busy street with all the cars taking students to school and after school. From already busy Courtland, onto already busy Walton to busy Vanier......... We do not need more traffic. Sent from my iPad Page 146 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 1:18 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/010/V/AP Hello We manage the property at 140 Kipling Avenue in Kitchener. Please note that we do not have any concerns with this By-law Amendment. Regards KRAFA CONSULTANTS & MANAGEMENT INC. Page 147 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 9:06 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning Request on Vanier Drive, Kitchener Good morning Mr. Pinnell I writing to you because some of my neighbours were discussing a notice they received regarding a request for zoning changes for property development on Vanier Drive. I have not received any information on this proposal at this time. Is it possible for you to either email or get a copy to my mailbox? Thank you in advance 205 Vanier Dr, Kitchener, ON N2C 1.17 Page 148 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:09 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] zoning amendment on Vanier Drive My name is'! own the house at 190 Vanier Drive. I have read your letter of Aug. 10 over several times and in general I think it is a terrible idea. More specifically, my main objection to the plan is the addition of (approx) 36 more cars. The ONLY way this plan could stand any chance of going through would be with a guarantee that the Region would put a traffic light at the intersection of Walton and Courtland. Also those extra vehicles would all be entering Vanier Drive directly across from a busy school zone where parents all try to park as close to the school as possible to drop off and pick up their kids. Because of the two high-rise apartments at the top of Vanier Dr plus the smaller units on Walton plus two schools the intersection at Walton and Courtland is already a major source of danger and aggravation, especially at peak times when the parents of school kids are picking them up or dropping them off at Rockway. Many times impatient drivers cut through the KW Springs parking lot to jump ahead of the line of cars waiting to turn onto Courtland. The other traffic problem is Vanier Drive itself. Since the re -construction the speed bumps are gone and Vanier Drive has once again become a speedway. Another issue is the fact that GRT has re -located the route 8 bus line which used to travel up and down Vanier Drive. This new housing development would mean that more people have to walk across Courtland Ave to get to the bus and ION stops. I've done it. It's not easy to get across Courtland on foot and because there is no traffic control at Walton most people jay -walk across Courtland wherever they get a gap in the traffic. Page 149 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 3:17 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] No way Hi I got a letter from city of Kitchener. I do not accept for our community to have another condo building because too many apt and crowded with others. Thk u 14 Highpark Ave Sent from my Whone Page 150 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:35 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning By -Law application - ZBA20/010/V/AP Good Day Andrew, Re: Zoning By -Law application - ZBA20/010/V/AP We have been home owners living in this area for 27 years. The letter received regarding the building of 36 stacked townhouses was not pleasing. We oppose this redevelopment for the following reasons (and probably more) - There are already 2 large apartment buildings at the end of Vanier Drive. - There are multiple 5 and 6 story buildings surrounding Walton and Kipling Avenues. - Vanier and cross streets are already busy traffic areas. - It's very difficult to turn left onto Courtland Ave from Walton Ave, especially at certain times of the day. When someone is trying to turn left the traffic gets backed up Walton Ave. It's very frustrating when you're needing to make a right hand turn. Having additional people using cars in the neighbourhood, will certainly increase the delays. There should already be a left hand turning lane installed. - The highway has become 35-40% busier over the last 27 years. This had led to noise pollution and transmissions pollution. Adding another 36 units (34 minus the existing 2 homes) will increase the traffic & human noise, increase the traffic congestion and increase pollution. - Our current neighbourhood utilities cannot accommodate an additional 36 unit Townhome complex. - There is concern over more 'Low Income Housing' in the neighbourhood. There has been no indication of this, but there has also been no indication these are 'higher end' Townhomes. - There will be more 'light' pollution. The look and feel of the neighbourhood would not be the same. Less greenery and more concrete. It's not appealing at all. - Would this increase our taxes? - There are already enough vacant spots in the city where townhouses could be built. Please don't mess with our neighbourhood. The bottom line is we don't want more traffic, more pollution, more lights or more noise! We hope you take these concerns into consideration when making a decision to redevelop the area. Sincerely, 76 Massey Ave Kitchener, Ontario N2C 1M3 Page 151 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2020 3:24 PM T - To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning By -Law Amendment Application ZBA20/010/V/AP Good Afternoon Mr. Pinnell, We write to you today with respectful confidence in the matter of the zoning amendment request as noted in the subject line of this email. I would request that you please "reply to all" in any future correspondence regarding this application by the property owners 2385235 Ontario Ltd., Theadore Connolly, and Brian Giles. We would like to be notified of any further developments regarding this application (including council meetings, discussions and written correspondence), however, your letter indicates that City Hall is currently closed, but we are to send a letter there? That is in and of itself not conducive to proper communication and we find this to be rather troublesome. We would ask that you forward this email to the appropriate party(ies) as our official notification in lieu of writing to City Hall due to the aforementioned closure - please confirm once this has been done. To note, we are firmly against this zoning change for the following reasons: • The drawing that you have sent along with the notification is not a draft plan of survey and is extremely vague. Our property abuts 133 Vanier Drive in the rear yard for approximately 59ft. The drawing included most certainly does not reflect this and is somewhat deceptive. • As noted above in this vague rendering, there are no setbacks noted for the rear yards, only the front, which is not to municipal code, and we therefore oppose this setback change request as well. • Kipling Avenue and Vanier Drive are both traffic calming streets. With the addition of 36 units (with at least 1-2 vehicles per) this would heavily increase traffic on both streets. This is problematic for several reasons. First and foremost, there is an elementary school and crossing within the direct vicinity of this project. Secondly, many vehicles already use Kipling Avenue as a thru-fair to get to Courtland Avenue via Kipling, Highpark, and Hillmount as it is extremely difficult to turn left onto Courtland Avenue from Walton Avenue without a traffic light present, and it is understood that no traffic light may be installed here due to the proximity of the light at Hanson Avenue. This causes more concern for children and cyclists in the area. • Stacked townhomes (be it condominium or freehold) pose a greater fire risk than single or semi- detached homes. • This area is already struggling with high density and high crime rates. • It is assumed with great confidence that projected buyers of such a proposed unit style will be investors, using the units to rent out as investment properties. Generally, renters are found to be less likely to maintain their property and any common areas that may be associated with the proposed project. As such, it is anticipated that owners/tenants will leave the property unkempt with minimal maintenance, and potential debris ending up on our property for us to clean up. • There is no mention, or visualization in your drawing regarding a retaining wall or berm to be installed behind/beside the property to control noise. With 36 proposed units, this will increase the noise to great levels. In addition, the land is not conducive to the construction of any such retaining wall or berm, unless considerably altered grading occurs, which could then cause significant ground water issues for existing residential homes; many of which were built in the 1960's and/or moved from the Page 152 of 157 current site of the Conestoga Expressway. These homes do not have sump pits or pumps, soaker pits or french drains. Modern stacked townhomes do not fit in with the current architectural features of the community. With the number of units and a fair guesstimate of selling prices based on current market conditions and the target buyer, we would anticipate a huge increase in our property taxes as a result of the proposed project. Two storey, single or semi-detached homes with attached, unexcavated garages would be an acceptable option, only so long as not one unit has interior ceilings greater than 8ft in height. We have lived in, and enjoyed our property and community since 1971. This proposed project would destroy our sight line to the fields of Rockway Public Elementary School; shield the sun from our garden which we have tended to for more than 49 years, and tremendously decrease our own privacy and the ability to enjoy our property as we have for so many years. Regards, Sent from Outlook Page 153 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:44 AM To: Andrew Pinnell : SuMning �Subject: EXTERNAL] By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/010/V/AP RE: 117 & 133 Vanier Drive, Kitchener 2385235 Ontario Ltd., Theodore Connolly and Brian Giles Dear Mr. Pinnell We are writing to you in regards to the above application to change/amend zoning by-law. We have been living at 14 Erie Avenue, Kitchener since January 1976. We have been very happy living in this neighbourhood. Our neighbourresiding at 11 Highpark Avenue, Kitchener are also very much concerned with the propose c anges to above location. We are very concerned with this application as it would change this area completely. The price of our houses will decrease if we get this kind of development to happen especially if they build 36 units which look like for low income potential owners/renters. The traffic will increase with the additional cars also making it more dangerous for the two schools that are located in our area. The development, providing it's granted, will take at least a year to complete therefore making it very noisy and dirty for us with the workmen and machinery that would be involved during construction. We already have two low income multiple rental properties in this area and do not need any more. There are many senior residence that live in this area (most houses on my street) and it would be disruptive to our way of life. We are not against people trying to make profit of this development but not at the cost of my house losing it's value which would happen if this project and zoning is allowed and granted. We trust that the council will take our concerns into consideration when making their decision. We also would like to be notified of the decision of the City of Kitchener in respect of these applications and when the meeting would be scheduled. 11 Highpark Avenue, Kitchener, ON N2C 2C1 Page 154 of 157 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 1:54 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; John Gazzola; Christine Bailey; STEVE RENON Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Post -Engagement Survey and Request for Written Comments Good Afternoon Mr. Pinnell, We have completed the Engagement Survey as requested. Please, also find our formal response below. Thank you for taking the time to provide further details on the plans for 117-133 Vanier Drive Based on the virtual meeting held on December 15th, there were several points made by area residents that need to be addressed with the "shoe horning" of this project onto the property. It was very apparent from the presentation the parking provided is not adequate for the project. The extra cars will park on the side streets and the traffic will increase on Vanier Drive/Walton Ave and Kipling Ave. The solution of "calling By - Law enforcement" that was given is not an adequate response to this and just pushes the problem around the neighbourhood as the cars will still need a place to park. It should not be the job of residents to continuously "police" the parking and by-laws in the neighbourhood. There already appears to be a parking issue with the apartment and condominium units on Vanier Drive north of Walton Avenue. The comment about the developer hoping the proximity of the LRT station at Block Line would lower the number of cars is a wish and not realistic in our opinion. Also, during the call, it was stated the distance to the LRT station at Block Line was 600 meters. Any pedestrian route would be a minimum of 850 meters. It is a long walk and may dissuade people from using the station, especially if there is an issue with mobility. It is not as convenient as it was made out to be during the presentation. The grading / water drainage needs to be addressed. Although during the meeting, people spoke of the property being "flat to the naked eye", Vanier Drive slowly slopes downwards from just north of Walton Ave. to the creek on the other side of Shelley Drive. Unless proper precautions are taken, the run-off will flow towards the houses on Vanier Drive and into the backyards on Kipling Avenue. Also, having confirmed during the meeting that there is no storm water retention tank being installed on the site; rather, there will be "other measures" to be potentially implemented, including the use of infiltration galleries is of huge concern. The installation of infiltration galleries will simply increase ground water flow that is already sloping towards the houses on Vanier Drive and into the backyards on Kipling Avenue. We feel it is unreasonable to present the neighbourhood with a concept to justify a zoning change request as opposed to a proper draft site plan. On our personal level, there were little to no solutions provided to address our concerns. To recap, our main concerns are: The sight lines that are currently there permit an open view of the sports fields at Rockway Public Elementary School. This will disappear. There will be excess light pollution caused by the outside lights present on the buildings and the lighting needed to ensure parking lot safety. From the concept drawings provided, it appears the parking lot will be approximately 40' from our house itself. There will be an increase in noise associated due to the large number of units proposed for the immediate area. The increase in noise will completely eliminate the enjoyment and privacy we have Page 155 of 157 had for almost 50 years. We also fear the increase in noise (as well as the increase in light pollution) will cause an interruption of our sleep/rest. ® Not brought up during meeting: The potential for residents to cut through the property on 162 Kipling Ave. to get to the LRT station at Block Line. This would be the shortest distance for people to access the LRT station from the new units. Without an adequate barrier in place, people will tend to take the shortest distance between two (2) points. This will cause unwanted people trespassing on our property causing us to feel vulnerable and unsafe. • In addition, we firmly believe that this unsightly project in our backyard will have a significant and negative impact on the resale value of our property, while at the same time, increasing our property taxes based on the sale of 36 units given the current market conditions. When we asked for an 8' fence in place of a 6' fence during the meeting, one of the panelists indicated that 8' fences were less stable in "their experience". (Maybe time for a new contractor for their fences!) At this point, at a minimum, we expect an 8' fence (with 6"X 6" posts or even better, a sound wall) around the parking lot, with landscaping and trees to immediately obscure the view of the new units and the associated parking lot. The landscaping will also help with the light pollution and the increased noise levels. Include directional, lower -level lighting in the site plans to limit the amount of light pollution escaping from the proposed property development. Construction projects like this take a significant amount of time (usually a minimum of 2 years plus any additional special seasonal items and ongoing repairs and adjustments until the site is assumed by the City of Kitchener) and create a significant amount of dust, dirt and debris run-off. We would anticipate a silt fence would be a proposed solution, however, this is not an acceptable way to prevent the dust from occurring. Due to the proximity of the construction to the property line and the increased noise levels, we can say with confidence we will need to keep our windows closed due to the noise and the dust, contrary to our current, normal spring/summer/fall habits of keeping our windows open. Since our windows will need to remain closed during the construction process as well as upon completion of the project, we insist that central air, and all the associated costs related to the installation of the central air and restoration of interior finishing our home that may be needed be assumed by the group developing the project. We have been in our house for almost 50 years with quiet and peace in our neighbourhood. We feel these requests are reasonable based on the current and minimalistic information provided and not difficult to accommodate as they are interrupting and changing our quiet neighbourhood .... we did not ask for them to develop this property. Regards, Page 156 of 157 Cc%ff)1.�.,�1L +�`�'� . �!,CC/�f�� i .Gt��a�` C' cL -.1/ cf i._ i��✓1E'ai _ ... _ '; \jUfG/ ..... - - eat � �LZ-�-�°� .C!� �G12� Gx �L�y�'1�.d�, .. �� C- .. ✓�i-jc-c� .� --�h , ca�� a� . ✓i'"—�'J2,- -,��". �. �Gr�/�v .fie:_.. -- 19 TA tle tr .f '' � / � - ��- G%c'?;P�;' ./tel G�.��-,� '✓c.4/% :/,�l�4Zei-,��Ci� r C&d �D Page 157 of 157