HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2022-02-07
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: February 7, 2022
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 10
DATE OF REPORT: January 5, 2022
REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-033
SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment OPA/21/002/S/JVW
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/21/004/S/JVW
134 and 152 Shanley Street
2701098 Ontario Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA/21/002/S/JVW for 2701098 Ontario Inc.
requesting a change in designation from Low Rise Residential (134 Shanley Street) and Low
Rise Residential with Specific Policy Area No. 18 (152 Shanley Street) to Medium Rise
Residential with Specific Policy Area No. 18 to permit an eight (8) storey multiple dwelling on
the lands , be adopted, in the form
shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD-2022-033
accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/004/S/JVW for 2701098 Ontario Inc. be
approved in the form shown in the Proposed By-law, and Map No. 1, attached to Report
DSD-2022-033 as Appendix B; and further
That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4), applications for minor variances
shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA
21/004/S/JVW.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation to approve
the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for properties
located at 134 and 152 Shanley Street.
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 17, 2021);
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
o Public site walk of the subject lands followed by small group engagement sessions
(August 17, 2021):
o notice letter advising of the public meeting was circulated to all property owners within
240 metres of the subject site, those who responded to the preliminary circulation;
and those who attended the Neighbourhood Meeting;
o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on January 14, 2022.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The owner of the properties addressed as 134 and 152 Shanley Street is proposing to change the
Official Plan designation from Low Rise Residential (134 Shanley Street) and Low Rise Residential
with Specific Policy Area No. 18 (152 Shanley Street) to Medium Rise Residential with Specific Policy
Area No. 18 and the zoning from Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Regulation Provision 129U
(134 Shanley Street) and Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Regulation Provision 128R (152
Shanley Street) in Zoning By-law 85-1 to Medium Rise Residential Six Zone (RES-6) in Zoning By-
law 2019-051 with a Site Specific Provision to further regulate parking, permit an increased floor
space ratio, building heights, setbacks and a Holding Provision to regulate site contamination. Staff
recommend that the applications be approved.
BACKGROUND:
2701098 Ontario Inc. has made an application to the City of Kitchener for an Official Plan
Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment proposing to change the designation and zoning of the
lands at 134 and 152 Shanley Street to permit the lands to be developed with an 8 storey multiple
residential building with surface and underground parking. The lands are designated Low Rise
Residential (134 Shanley Street) and Low Rise Residential with Site Specific Policy Area No. 18
(154 Shanley Street) in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5)
with Special Regulation Provision 129U (134 Shanley Street) and Residential Six Zone (R-6) with
Special Regulation Provision 128R (152 Shanley Street) in Zoning By-law 85-1.
Existing zoning permissions include:
Residential Six Zone (R-6): Permits single detached, semi-detached and multiple dwellings
Residential Five Zone (R-5): Permits single detached, semi-detached and multiple dwellings
129U: Prohibits multiple dwellings having a maximum of 3 dwelling units (triplexes) on lots
with less the 15.0 metre in lot width.
Special Regulation Provision128R: Permits a maximum building height of 14.0 metres and a
maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.0
Site Context
The subject lands at 134 and 152 Shanley Street are located at the corner of Duke Street West and
Shanley Street and have a combined lot area of 4,252 square metres with 79.5 metres of frontage
along Shanley Street and 54.2 metres of frontage along Duke Street West. 134 Shanley Street
contains a single detached dwelling and 152 Shanley Street is currently vacant which was formerly
occupied by the four (4) storey Electrohome facility, which was recently demolished in 2020 due to
health and safety concerns. The surrounding neighbourhood consists of existing low-rise residential
uses including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and multiple dwelling buildings
as well as small commercial/industrial uses.
Figure 1 - Location Map: 134 and 152 Shanley Street
152 Shanley Street Vision Statement
On April 28, 2018 the City held a design charette with 66 members of the public in attendance to
engage with the community about the vision for the future redevelopment of the 152 Shanley Street.
People were asked the following questions; What is great about your neighbourhood?; What if
anything is missing in your neighbourhood?; What is the most important feature of the site? And then
people were asked to develop a design for the redevelopment of the site. At the end of the session
there were some agreed upon basic design principles that the community had come up with that
then formed the vision statement for the redevelopment of 152 Shanley Street. The design principles
and vision statement for future development on the site were presented to the Planning and Strategic
Initiatives Committee for approval on November 5, 2018. The Council endorsed vision statement
includes the following principles:
The New Building will be predominantly residential and encourage non-residential ground
floor retail, service, and community uses;
A six (6) storey building height (approximately 22 metres);
Cultural Heritage will be respected (noted that the structure will likely not be retained but some
components could be incorporated into the new design);
Underground parking with limited surface parking directed to the rear of property and on west
side of lot;
Two vehicular access points on Shanley and Duke with clear demarcation with decorative
entrance feature;
Enhanced public realm, including landscaping, lighting, street furniture, public art, building
step backs and active streetscapes; and
Outdoor amenity area to be provided which may include patios, roof top amenities and highly
landscaped streetscape to promote walkability.
While the proposed eight (8) storey building is taller than the six (6) storey building that was
envisioned for the site during the charette, the massing is comparable. The six (6) storey vision
th
statement building was approximately 22.0 metresfrom the groundto the ceiling of the 6floor and
approximately 25 metres from the ground to the ceiling of the mechanical penthouse. In comparison,
th
the proposed developmentincludes both residential units and mechanical uses on the 8floorwith
a height of 27.5 metres. Furthermore, the proposed building includes step backs on both the western
and northern façade to provide transition to the adjacent areas. To demonstrate that the massing of
the six (6) storey building in the vision statement and the proposed eight (8) storey building are
similar, the applicant prepared shadow studies comparing the two buildings which show there are
minimal impacts from the marginal increase in height. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed eight
(8) storey, 27.5 metre tall building aligns with the vision statement as the massing is similar in height
, provides adequate amenity space, respects the cultural heritage of the
site and includes a high-level of urban design with parking screened by the building and located
underground.
REPORT:
The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands identified in Figure 1 with an eight (8) storey,
166 unit multiple dwelling building with 133 surface and underground parking spaces. The building
-
Street West, with the majority of the proposed massing located along Shanley Street. The principal
entrance to the building is located in the southeast corner of the building at the intersection of Duke
and Shanley. The development proposes ground floor residential units facing both Shanley and
Duke, with each unit having a dedicated entrance from the street. These units will also contain private
outdoor amenity areas and covered/canopied entryways which reflect the existing character of the
street and surrounding single detached dwellings.
The original development concept included 172 units (1 and 2 bedrooms only) with 128 parking
spaces. In response to comments provided by Planning staff and the public, the applicant has
amended the proposed development to achieve a development with a mix of unit types that is
compatible with the existing neighbourhood and further aligns with the Council endorsed Vision
Statement for 152 Shanley Street.
Tables 1 provides a comparison of the development concepts, while Table 2 highlights how the
proposed development aligns with the Council endorsed vision statement.
Table 1. Development Concept Comparison Table
Original Development Concept Revised Development Concept
Number of Units
172 residential units 166 residential units
Parking Spaces
128 (0.74 spaces per unit) 133 (0.8 spaces per unit)
Unit Types 1 bedroom units 1 bedroom units
2 bedroom units 2 bedroom units
(7) 3 bedroom units
Ground Floor Units provided at grade. No raised -
Unit Design
outdoor amenity or covered
entries. below balconies above) and raised
outdoor patio areas for outdoor
amenity.
Non-residential
Not included in the proposed The proposed Site Specific Provision
uses
zoning by-law amendment. allows non-residential uses at grade to
allow for flexibility for ground level
commercial units in the future
Visual Barrier to
1.8 metre visual barrier (6 feet) 2.44 metre visual barrier (8 feet)
screen parking
to adjacent
single detached
homes.
Figure 2 Revised Development Rendering
The revised development concept includes 6 fewer dwelling units than originally proposed, includes
additional on-site parking for residents and visitors, a broader mix of unit types (including, seven 3
bedroom units), and ground floor townhouse style units designed to activate the street and enhance
the public realm. Furthermore, a 2.44 metre (8 foot) visual barrier will be provided to screen the
parking and vehicular access to adjacent single detached dwellings. Staff is supportive of the
proposed revised development concept.
Table 2. Vision Statement/Development Concept Comparison Table
152 Shanley Vision Proposed Development Aligns with Vision
Statement Statement
Building will be The Zoning By-law allows for non-residential Yes
predominantly residential uses at grade. 4.5 metre tall ground floor
and encourage non-units are proposed to allow for flexibility for
residential ground floor ground level commercial units in the future.
retail, service, and
community uses
Six (6) storey building The six (6) storey vision statement building Similar massing is
height (approximately 22 was approximately 22.0 metres to the ceiling proposed. Yes
th
metres) of the 6 floor and approximately 25 metres
to the ceiling of the mechanical penthouse.
In comparison, the proposed development
includes residential units and mechanical
th
uses on the 8 floor. The building heights
and massing are comparable.
Cultural Heritage will be A Salvage, Reuse and Commemoration Plan Yes
respected (noted that the is required through the site plan process
structure will likely not be which requires the applicant to incorporate
retained but some materials from the original Electrohome
components could be building.
incorporated into the new
design)
Underground parking with Majority of the parking is located underground Yes
limited surface parking (113 spaces), with the surface parking
directed to the rear of screened from the street by the building and
property and on west side adjacent single detached dwellings screened
of lot. by a 2.44 metre (8 foot) visual barrier.
Enhanced public realm, Townhouse-style units with covered entries Yes
including landscaping, are provided at grade and include raised
lighting, street furniture, outdoor patio areas with enhanced
public art, building step landscaping. The principal entrance to the
backs and active building is located in the southeast corner of
streetscapes. the building at the intersection of Duke and
Shanley with a large landscaped/hardscaped
entrance. Numerous building stepbacks are
provided at various building heights.
Outdoor amenity area to All residential units will have balconies, Yes
be provided which may terraces or patio areas. Ground floor patios
include patios, roof top are raised with enhanced landscaping. A
amenities and highly common outdoor amenity area/rooftop patio
landscaped streetscape to area is proposed on the eighth floor which will
promote walkability. also have a green roof component.
Two vehicular access Consideration was given to having a second Not Feasible
points on Shanley and access point to the site. Ultimately this
Duke with clear entrance location was not advanced for many
demarcation with reasons:
decorative entrance 1. There is a bend in Duke Street just north of
feature the property, which could create issues
maneuvering into the site.
2. The northern portion of the property does
not align with Wilhelm Street meaning the
entrance would not be aligned either. This
would create maneuvering issues for those
entering or leaving the site to/from Wilhelm.
3. An entrance from the north end of Duke
Street is higher grade which would create
challenges in accessing the underground
parking.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development aligns with the vision statement as the building
massing is similar in height, the development provides adequate amenity space, respects the cultural
heritage significance of the site, includes a high level of urban design, and the surface parking will
be screened by the building with the majority of the required parking located underground.
To facilitate the redevelopment of 134 and 152 Shanley Street with the proposed concept, the owner
has made an application to the City of Kitchener for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law
Amendment proposing to change the designation and zoning of the subject lands. The lands are
currently designated Low Rise Residential (134 Shanley Street) and Low Rise Residential with
Specific Policy Area No, 18 (152 Shanley Street) in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned
Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Regulation Provision 129U (134 Shanley Street) and
Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Regulation Provision 128R (152 Shanley Street) in Zoning
By-law 85-1.
The owner is proposing to change the Official Plan designation of both 134 and 152 Shanley Street
to Medium Rise Residential with amended Specific Policy Area No. 18 to apply to both properties
with a permitted building height of 27.75 metres and an FSR of 3.0. Whereas Specific Policy Area
No. 18 now permits a building height of 14.0 metres and a FSR of 2.0.
The owner is proposing to change the zoning to Medium Rise Residential Six Zone (RES-6) with
Site Specific Provision (189) and Holding Provision (24H) in Zoning By-law 2019-051, to permit a
reduced parking rate, an increase in the maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio (FSR), an increase
in the maximum permitted building height, alternate building setbacks, require a visual barrier with
a height of 2.44 metres (8 feet) and add a Holding Provision to the zone to prevent the development
of the site with sensitive uses, including residential uses, until the site contamination can be
remediated.
Tables 3 and 4 below provide a comparison of land use designation and zoning permissions for the
proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.
Table 3. Official Plan Designation Comparison Table
In Effect 2014 Official Plan Proposed Official Plan
Designation Amendment
Land Use Designation
Low Rise Residential (134 Medium Rise Residential with
Shanley Street) Specific Policy Area No. 18
Low Rise Residential with
Specific Policy Area No. 18
(152 Shanley Street)
Maximum FSR 2.0 3.0
Maximum Building
14.0 metres 27.75 metres
Height
Table 4. Zoning By-law Comparison Table
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Permissions (Zoning
Permissions (Zoning By-law 2019-051)
By-law 85-1)
Zone Category
R-6 with 128R RES6 (189), (24H)
R-5 with 129U
Maximum Floor Space
2.0 3.0
Ratio (FSR)
Maximum Building
14 metres (4 storeys) 27.75 metres (8 storeys)
Height of multiple
dwellings
Minimum Front Yard
4.5 metres 4.1 metres (Duke Street)
Setback (Duke Street)
Minimum Exterior
4.5 metres 5.8 metres (Shanley Street)
Side Yard Setback
(Shanley Street)
Minimum Side yard
1.2 metres 3.0 metres for buildings up to 5 storeys.
setback
9.0 metres for any portion of the building 6
or more storeys.
Minimum Rear Yard
7.5 metres 9.0 metres for buildings up to 2 storeys.
Setback
12.0 metres for any portion of the building 3
or more storeys.
Required parking
1.25 spaces per unit 0.8 spaces per unit (0.7 spaces per unit
0.165 spaces for each plus 0.1 visitor parking)
dwelling less than 51
square metres
Bicycle parking
Not required by the By-0.5 Class A (internal) bicycle spaces per
law unit
6 Class B Bicycle Parking Stalls
Electric Vehicle
Not required by the By-A minimum of 20 percent of the parking
Parking law spaces required for multiple dwellings shall
be designed to permit the future installation
of electric vehicle supply equipment.
Minimum and 1.8 metres (6 feet) 2.44 metres (8 feet)
Maximum Visual
Barrier Height
Non-residential uses
Not permitted.
craftsman shop;
convenience commercial;
day care facilities;
health offices;
personal services;
offices;
restaurants/cafés;
social service establishments
While the proposed medium density land use designation and RES-6 zoning will allow for a taller,
denser development than what the current land use designation and zoning allows for, the proposed
designation and zoning will result in a development that is compatible with the neighbourhood and
sympathetic to adjacent single detached dwellings as the proposed zoning includes increased
building setbacks and building steps back, requires a taller visual barrier and requires that electric
vehicle ready parking spaces and adequate bicycle parking are provided. The proposed zoning will
also facilitate non-residential ground floor retail, service, and community uses.
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.
To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active
transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which
efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus, rapid transit, and
makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced
and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of
providing a broad range of housing. The proposed multiple dwelling development represents an
attainable form of market-based housing.
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
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 in conformity with the PPS.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan):
The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed
to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range
and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit
viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth
areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and
other types of infrastructure.
Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of
the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of
housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet
projected needs of current and future residents.
The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher
density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can
provide access to transit and other amenities.
The subject lands are located wit
Station Area. The lands are identified as a MTSA in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the
Official Plan on Map 2 Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for the Central
station. The Region of Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review project and as part
of that work, revised MTSA boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council and these lands are
within the MTSA. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City
achieve density targets in the MTSA. 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. The multiple dwelling development is also proposed to include several unit types with
direct access to Duke Street and Shanley Street, increasing the variety of housing options for future
residents. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
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
m to the Regional Official Plan.
City of Kitchener Official Plan and proposed Official Plan Amendment:
The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential (Map 3) in the 2014 Official Plan with
Specific Policy Area No. 18 applying to 152 Shanley Street. The existing 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. Specific
Policy Area No. 18 applies to 152 Shanley street and allows for a maximum building height of 14.0
metres, and a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.0.
The applicant is proposing to change the land use designation to Medium Rise Residential and to
amend Specific Area Policy No. 18. The Medium Rise Residential designation permits medium
density housing types including townhouse dwellings in a cluster development, multiple dwellings
and special needs housing. The applicant is proposing to apply Site Specific Policy Area No. 18 to
both 134 and 152 Shanley Street and to amend Policy 15.D.12.18 to allow for a maximum Floor
Space Ratio (FSR) of 3.0 and a maximum building height of 27.75 metres whereas the Medium Rise
Residential policies permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 and a maximum building height of
8 storeys or 25 metres. The increase in building height is to accommodate taller 4.5 metre ground
floor units that could be converted into non-residential uses in the future.
Urban Structure
The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for
directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout
the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or
redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth
Centre, Major Transit Station Areas, Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section
3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within a Major Transit Station Area. The
planned function of the Major Transit Station Areas is to provide densities that will support transit,
and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial uses. They are also intended to
have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented.
Policies also require that development applications in Major Transit Station Areas give consideration
to the Transit-Oriented Development policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the Official Plan.
Generally, the Transit-Oriented Development policies support a compact urban form, that supports
walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit
stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience. These
policies also support developments which foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable
pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed
development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit and rapid transit
while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and provides excellent access to off-road
pedestrian and cycling facilities.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment
will support a development that not only complies with the policies for a Major Transit Station
Area but also contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally friendly city.
Urban Design Policies:
policies are outlined in Section 11 of In the opinion of staff,
the proposed development satisfies these policies including: Streetscape; Safety; Universal Design;
Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and Scale Design. To address these policies, an Urban
Design Brief was submitted and has been reviewed by City staff. The Urban Design Brief is
acceptable and outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed
zoning regulations.
Streetscape A key design feature of the proposed development are street fronting townhouse style
units fronting onto Duke Street and Shanley Street. The ground floor units are proposed to
incorporate balconies, porches and raised patio areas along Duke and Shanley Street. The raised
patios included enhanced landscaping plantings. These units will have direct pedestrian connections
to the sidewalk to animate both streets.
Safety As with all developments that go through site plan approval, staff will ensure Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site meets
emergency services policies.
Universal Design The development will be designed to comply with
Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code.
Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale The subject site is designed to have a building
that will be developed at a scale that is compatible with the existing and planned surroundings. The
front yard setbacks of the proposed building are compatible with existing adjacent properties.
Building stepbacks are provided to mitigate overlook issues with adjacent residential properties.
Townhouse-style units with covered porches (below upper unit balconies) and raised patios are
proposed in the front and exterior side yards of the site to enhance the human scale within the
development along Shanley Street and Duke Street. Enhanced screening such as landscaping and
a 2.44 metre tall fence (8 foot visual barrier) will be required where the surface parking is adjacent
to low-rise residential uses and public spaces.
Transportation Policies:
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 subject lands are located close to public transit routes, and within
800 metres (about a 10-minute walk) of a rapid transit station. The building has excellent access to
cycling networks, including existing on and off-street cycling facilities, including the Spur Line Trail.
the proposal for transit-oriented development on the subject lands.
Policy 3.C.2.22 states that until such time as Station Area Plans are completed and this Plan is
amended accordingly, in the interim, any development application submitted within a Major Transit
Station Area will be reviewed generally in accordance with the Transit-Oriented Development
Policies included in Section 13.C.3.12
The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications supports a more dense
residential development. The location of the proposed building, secured through the proposed site
specific provisions, will result in a built form that fosters walkability with pedestrian-friendly
environments that allow walking to be a safe, comfortable, barrier-free and convenient form of urban
travel.
At future site plan approval processes, the design of the buildings will have to feature a high quality
public realm to enhance the identity of the area and create gathering points for social interaction,
community events and other activities. Additionally, secured and visitor bicycle parking is required
as part of the Zoning By-law.
Cultural Heritage
The subject property is not listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) but is identified
on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings as a property of interest and is located
within the Mt. Hope/Breithaupt/Gruhn/Gildner Green Neighbourhood, a Cultural Heritage Landscape
(CHL), as described in appendix 5 of the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study approved by
Council in 2015. The CHL Study identifies the neighbourhood as a Cultural Heritage Landscape of
this CHL, so appropriate conservation tools (e.g. designation under the OHA) have not yet been
identified. As a result, based on definitions in the Planning Act and PPS, the CHL does not meet the
definition of a protected heritage property. But it is still a significant CHL.
A Salvage, Reuse and Commemoration Plan is required through the site plan process which requires
the applicant to incorporate materials from the original Electrohome building. The applicant has
retained original building materials from the former Electrohome building which will be incorporated
into the new building.
Housing Policies:
Section 4.1.1 of the Official Plan contains policies with the primary objective to provide for an
appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to
satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed
development increases the range of dwelling units available in the city. The development is
contemplated to include a range of unit types including, one, two and three bedroom units.
-its will be designed to have direct access to the
sidewalks along Duke and Shanley street, and the range of units will appeal to a variety of
households.
Conclusion
The subject applications request that the land use designation as shown on Map 3 of the 2014
Official Plan be changed from Low Rise Residential (134 Shanley Street) and Low Rise Residential
with Specific Policy Area No. 18 (152 Shanley Street) to Medium Rise Residential with amended
Specific Policy Area No.18. Based on the above policy and planning analysis, staff is of the opinion
that the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents good planning and recommend that the
proposed Official Plan Amendment be
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment:
The subject lands are zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Regulation Provision 129U
(134 Shanley Street) and Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Regulation Provision 128R (152
Shanley Street) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The existing zoning permits a range of residential uses
including multiple dwellings up to 14.0 metres in height with a maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio
(FSR) of 2.0.
The applicant has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law 85-1 to change the zoning from
Residential Five Zone R-5 with Special Regulation Provision 129U (134 Shanley Street) and
Residential Six Zone R-6 with Special Regulation Provision 128R (152 Shanley Street) in Zoning
By-law 85-1 to Medium Rise Residential Six Zone RES-6 with Site Specific Provision (189) and
Holding Provision (24) in Zoning By-law 2019-051.
Official Plan policies indicate that where special zoning regulations are requested for residential
intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the site specific zoning regulations
will consider compatibility with existing built form; appropriate massing and setbacks that support
and maintain streetscape and community character; appropriate buffering to mitigate adverse
impacts, particularly with respect to privacy; avoidance of unacceptable adverse impacts by
providing appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area.
Staff offer the following comments with respect to the proposed site-specific Provision (189):
a) On-site Parking shall be provided as follows:
i) Parking for multiple dwellings shall be provided at a rate of 0.7 spaces per unit plus 0.1
visitor spaces per unit.
The purpose of this regulation is to provide a parking rate which is appropriate for the development.
Zoning By-law 2019-051 requires a parking rate of 1.1 spaces per unit (inclusive of visitor spaces).
The applicant has provided a parking justification report in support of the proposed parking rates.
The subject lands are in an MTSA, have good access to public transit and rapid transit, pedestrian
and cycling facilities. Planning and Transportation Services staff is of the opinion that the parking
rate is appropriate for the subject lands.
b) 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 screen the surface
parking lot from adjacent low rise residential properties and reduce visual impacts of the proposed
development on adjacent properties.
c) The maximum building height shall be 27.75 metres.
The purpose of this regulation is to ensure the building does not exceed 8 storeys in height. The
base RES-6 zone permits a building height of 25 metres. The additional 2.75 metres is required to
allow for 4.5 metre tall ground floor units to allow for flexibility for ground level commercial units
in the future.
d) That the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 3.0
The purpose of this regulation is to cap the Floor Space Ratio and ensure development does not exceed
the density presented in the concept plans.
e) The minimum front yard setback (Duke Street frontage) shall be 4.1 metres.
The purpose of this regulation is to ensure the building setback is consistent with adjacent low rise
residential dwellings on Duke Street.
f) The minimum exterior side yard setback (Shanley Street frontage) shall be 5.8 metres.
The purpose of this regulation is to ensure the buildings setback is consistent with the adjacent low-
rise residential dwellings on Shanley Street.
g) The minimum side yard setback shall be:
i. 3.0 metres for buildings up to 5 storeys.
ii. 9.0 metres for any portion of the building 6 or more storeys.
The purpose of this regulation is to regulate the building step backs and to ensure that there is an
appropriate transition in height to the adjacent low rise residential properties.
h) The minimum rear yard setback shall be:
i. 9.0 metres for buildings up to 2 storeys.
ii. 12.0 metres for any portion of the building 3 or more storeys.
The purpose of this regulation is to regulate the building step backs and to ensure that there is an
appropriate transition in height to the adjacent low rise residential properties. Furthermore, this
regulation ensures there is adequate site access that can accommodate the drive aisle and
landscaping.
i) The following uses shall also be permitted on the ground floor.
shop;
convenience retail;
day care facilities;
health offices;
personal services;
offices;
restaurants/cafés; and
social service establishments.
The purpose of this regulation is to permit small scale commercial uses for residents and the
neighbourhood that are compatible with the surrounding residential dwellings and community.
The proposed limited non-residential uses are in conformity with Section 15.D.3.27 of the Official
Plan which provides that limited non-residential uses can be provided within a residential land use
locations in the residential land use designations to support the development of a walkable and
he extent of non-residential uses adheres to the uses set out in the
Official Plan, no relief from the Official Plan is required to permit the additional non-residential uses.
j) Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited.
The Region of Waterloo has indicated Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited to mitigate
the risks associated with contaminants that will remain beneath the site when the property is
redeveloped.
Staff offer the following comments with respect to the Holding Provision (24H):
Official Plan policies indicate that holding provisions will be applied in those situations where it is
necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment
of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment
have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to implement this Plan.
The City will enact a by-law to remove the holding symbol when all the conditions set out in the
holding provision have been satisfied, permitting development or redevelopment in accordance with
the zoning category assigned.
Holding Provision (24H): No redevelopment shall be permitted until such time as a Record of
Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment
and Climate Change. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo
is in receipt of a letter from the MOECC advising that a Record of Site Condition has been
completed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.
The Region of Waterloo has identified that there are known and high environmental threats located
Threats Inventory
Database (TID). A Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be
and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have been received by the Region, redevelopment of the site
is not permitted.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed RES-6 Zone together with Site Specific Provision 189 will
provide for a form of development that is compatible with the neighbourhood, which will add visual
interest and enhanced landscaping that will contribute to the streetscape, which will appropriately
accommodate on-site parking needs, and which represents good planning. Staff recommend that
the proposed Zoning By-
Department and Agency Comments:
Circulation of the OPA and ZBA was undertaken April 2021 to applicable City departments and other
review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency
and necessary revisions and updated were made. Copies of c
of this report.
The following Reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment:
Planning Justification and Urban Design Report
Prepared by: IBI Group, March 22, 2021
Planning Justification and Urban Report Addendum
Prepared by: IBI Group, October 14, 2021
Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report
Prepared by: Walter Fedy, October 1, 2021
Transportation Impact, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Justification Study
Prepared by: Salvini Consulting March, 2021
Pedestrian Wind Assessment
Prepared by: SLR, March 23, 2021
Stationary Noise Impact Study
Prepared by: Acoustic Engineering Ltd, March 9, 2021
Vegetation Management Plan
Prepared by: GSP Group, January 2021
Community Input & Staff Responses
Staff received written responses from 34 residents with respect to the proposed development. These
was held on June 17, 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 group site walk/engagement session of the subject lands. A
summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below.
What We Heard Staff Comment
Three (3) bedroom units should be In direct response to public comments, the applicant has
provided rather than just one (1) and revised the development to included seven, 3 bedroom
two (2) bedroom units. units.
The location of the buildings have been revised and are
Concerns that 8 storey building and now situated to have minimal overlook into adjacent
surface parking will impact privacy to properties. In addition, the site-specific regulation is
adjacent properties. required for an 8ft high (2.44 metre) visual barrier (fence)
to screen the surface parking lot from adjacent properties.
The original development proposal included 172
Too many units are being proposed residential units and 128 parking spaces. The revised
and not enough on-site parking development concept includes 166 residential units and
which will result in cars parking on 133 parking spaces. The number of units was decreased
the street. and the number of parking spaces has increased.
Electric Vehicle Parking should be The proposed zoning by-law requires 20% of the required
required. parking to be electric vehicle ready parking spaces
An eight (8) storey building is too tall Building step backs are provided to mitigate overlook
issues with adjacent residential properties. Townhouse-
and does not fit in the neighbourhood
style units with covered porches are provided along
with single detached dwellings. The
Shanley Street and Duke Street with setbacks that are
building needs to fit the
consistence with adjacent low-rise residential properties.
neighbourhood character.
134 Shanley Street is not a designated heritage property
nor does the property or building have any cultural heritage
significances or features that would support designation.
The subject property is located within the Mt.
Hope/Breithaupt/Gruhn/Gildner Green Neighbourhood, a
Concerns that 134 Shanley is a
Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), as described in
designated heritage house that will
Appendix 5 of the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study
approved by Council in 2015. The CHL Study identifies the
be demolished.
neighbourhood as a Cultural Heritage Landscape of
Considerable Val
CHL Study has not been completed for this CHL, so
appropriate conservation tools (e.g. designation under the
OHA) have not yet been identified. As a result, based on
definitions in the Planning Act and PPS, the CHL does not
meet the definition of a protected heritage property.
Shanley Street and Duke Street have current volumes
below, or on the low end on what is expected on a minor
The development will result in traffic
collector street. Based on the Salvini Consulting
congestion on local streets and at
Transportation Study, trip generation estimates this site
intersections. The development will
will add approximately 62 trips in the AM peak and 76 trips
result in a significant increase in in the PM peak (or approximately one additional every 52
seconds). This increase is not expected to result in
traffic resulting in unsafe conditions
roadway capacity issues for the roads in this
for drivers and residents
neighbourhood. Given the low traffic volumes currently
seen on adjacent roads.
The proposed zoning will permit non-residential uses at
Commercial uses, such as a pub or
grade by requiring 4.5 metre tall ground floor units to allow
restaurant should be permitted.
for flexibility for ground level commercial units in the future.
Planning Conclusions
In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and
Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 134152 Shanley Street to be developed with an eight (8)
storey multiple dwelling building. 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. It is recommended that the applications be approved.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications associated with this recommendation.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget Therecommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM
council / committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding
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
who attended the Neighbourhood Information Meeting, and Notice of the Public Meeting was posted
in The Record on January 14, 2022 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix C).
CONSULT The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were circulated
to property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands on May 10, 2021. In response to this
circulation, staff received written responses from 34 households, which were summarized as part of
this staff report.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
DSD-18-143 Vision Statement for 152 Shanley Street
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
Growth Plan, 2020
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
Regional Official Plan, 2015
City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051
REVIEWED BY: Stevenson, Garett Manager of Development Review, Planning Division
APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services
APPENDIXS:
Appendix A Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Appendix B Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Appendix C Newspaper Notice
Appendix D Department and Agency Comments
Appendix E Public Comments
AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
CITY OF KITCHENER
134-152 Shanley Street
AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
CITY OF KITCHENER
134-152 Shanley Street
INDEX
SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives
Committee of February 7, 2022
APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives
Committee
APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council
AMENDMENT NO. XXTO THE OFFICIALPLANOF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS
This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City of
Kitchener (2014). This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive.
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to amend:
Map 3 -Land Use by redesignating lands from Low Rise Residential to Medium Rise
Residential..
Map 5 - Specific Policy Areas to add the lands at 134 Shanley Street to Specific Policy Area
No. 18.
Site Specific Policy 15.D.12.18. to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR)of 3.0 and a
maximum Building Height of 27.75 metres:
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
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.
To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active
transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development
which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus and rapid
transit, and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The
lands are serviced and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial
policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed multiple dwelling
development represents an attainable form of market-based housing.
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
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 forgoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan):
The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are
designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide
3
for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which
support transit viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth
within strategic growth areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for
investments in transit and other types of infrastructure.
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 Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular,
higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations
that can provide access to transit and other amenities.
Station Area. The lands are identified as a MTSA in the 2014 Official Plan. In the Official Plan on
Map 2 Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for the Central station. The
Region of Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review project and as part of that
work, the MTSAs boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council and these lands are within the
MTSA. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City achieve
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. The
multiple dwelling development is also proposed to include several unit types with direct access to
Duke Street and Shanley Street, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
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
staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan.
City of Kitchener Official Plan and proposed Official Plan Amendment:
Specific Policy Area No. 18 applying to 152 Shanley Street. The existing 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.
Specific Policy Area No. 18 applies to 152 Shanley street and allows for a maximum building
height of 14.0 metres, and a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.0.
4
The applicant is proposing to change the land use designation to Medium Rise Residential and
to amend Specific Area Policy No. 18. The Medium Rise Residential designation permits
medium density housing types including townhouse dwellings in a cluster development, multiple
dwellings and special needs housing. The applicant is proposing to apply Site Specific Policy
Area No. 18 to both 134 and 152 Shanley Street and to amend Policy 15.D.12.18 to allow for a
maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 3.0 and a maximum building height of 27.75 metres
whereas the Medium Rise Residential policies permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 and
a maximum building height of 8 storeys or 25 metres. The increase in building height is to
accommodate taller 4.5 metre ground floor units that could be converted into non-residential
uses in the future.
Urban Structure
The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies
for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted
throughout the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of
development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include
the Urban Growth Centre, Major Transit Station Areas, Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy,
according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within a Major
Transit Station Area. The planned function of the Major Transit Station Areas is to provide
densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and
commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is
pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented.
Policies also require that development applications in Major Transit Station Areas give
consideration to the Transit-Oriented Development policies contained in section 13.C.3.12 of the
Official Plan. Generally, the Transit-Oriented Development policies support a compact urban
form, that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in
close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit
rider convenience. These policies also support developments which foster walkability by
creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is
of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served
by nearby transit and rapid transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and
provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law
Amendment will support a development that not only complies with the policies for a Major
Transit Station Area but also contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more
environmentally friendly city.
Urban Design Policies:
policies are outlined in Section 11 of In the opinion of
staff, the proposed development satisfies these policies including: Streetscape; Safety;
Universal Design; Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and Scale Design. To address
these policies an Urban Design Brief was submitted and has been reviewed by City staff. The
Urban Design Brief is acceptable and outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design
and informs the proposed zoning regulations.
Streetscape A key design feature of the proposed development are street fronting townhouse
style units fronting onto Duke Street and Shanley Street. The ground floor units are proposed to
5
incorporate balconies, porches and raised patio areas along Duke and Shanley Street. The
raised patios included enhanced landscaping plantings. These units will have direct pedestrian
connections to the sidewalk to animate both streets.
Safety As with all developments that go through site plan approval, staff will ensure Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site
meets emergency services policies.
Universal Design The development will be designed to comply with Ontario Building Code and
Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale The subject site is designed to have a
building that will be developed at a scale that is compatible with the existing and planned
surroundings. The front yard setbacks of the proposed building are compatible with existing
adjacent properties. Building stepbacks are provided to mitigate overlook issues with adjacent
residential properties. Townhouse-style units with covered porches (below upper unit
balconies) and raised patios are proposed in the front and exterior side yards of the site to
enhance the human scale within the development along Shanley Street and Duke Street.
Enhanced screening such as landscaping and a 2.44 metre tall fence (8 foot visual barrier) will
be required where the surface parking is adjacent to low-rise residential uses and public spaces.
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 subject lands are located close to public transit routes, and
within 800 metres (about a 10-minute walk) of a rapid transit station. The building has excellent
access to cycling networks, including existing on and off-street cycling facilities, including the Spur
system supports the proposal for transit-oriented development on the subject lands.
Cultural Heritage
The subject property is not listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) but is
identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings as a property of interest, and
is located within the Mt. Hope/Breithaupt/Gruhn/Gildner Green Neighbourhood, a Cultural
Heritage Landscape (CHL), as described in appendix 5 of the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape
Study approved by Council in 2015. The CHL Study identifies the neighbourhood as a Cultural
Her
has not been completed for this CHL, so appropriate conservation tools (e.g. designation under
the OHA) have not yet been identified. As a result, based on definitions in the Planning Act and
PPS, the CHL does not meet the definition of a protected heritage property. But it is still a
significant CHL.
A Salvage, Reuse and Commemoration Plan is required through the site plan process which
requires the applicant to incorporate materials from the original Electrohome building. The
applicant has retained original building materials from the former Electrohome building which will
be incorporated into the new building.
Housing
ng is to provide for an appropriate range, variety
and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying
housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed development increases
the range of dwelling units available in the city. The development is contemplated to include a
6
-
ground floor units will be designed to have direct access to the sidewalks along Duke and Shanley
street, and the range of units will appeal to a variety of households.
Conclusion
The amendment as proposed herein is consistent with the objectives of the Provincial Policy
Statement, conform with Policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and
. Staff are of the
opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents good planning, and recommends
that the proposed Official Plan Amendment be approved.
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
The City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) is hereby amended as follows:
a) Amend Map No. 3 Land Use by:
i. Designating the Area of Amendment as Medium Rise Residential instead of
Low Rise Residential, as shown on the attached Schedule A;
b) Amend Map No. 5 Specific Policy Areas by:
i. Adding Specfic Policy Area No. 18 to the Area of Amendment, as shown on the
attached Schedule B; and
c) Amend Site Specific Policy 15.D.12.18 as follows:
18. 134 and 152 Shanley Street
Notwithstanding the Medium Rise Residential land use designation and
policies of the lands located at 134 and152 Shanley Street:
a) the maximum Floor Space Ratio will be 3.0;
b) the maximum building height will be 28 metres; and
c) A Holding provision pursuant to Section 17.E.13 will apply to residential
uses, day care uses and other sensitive uses. The Holding provision
will not be removed until such time as a Record of Site Condition has
been acknowledged by the Province and a release has been issued by
the Region.
7
APPENDIX 1: Notice of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (February 7, 2022)
PROPERTY OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED
TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS
PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN & ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENTS
UNDER SECTIONS 17, 22 & 34 OF THE PLANNING ACT
8
APPENDIX 2: Minutes of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (February 7, 2022)
9
APPENDIX 3 - Minutes of the Meeting of City Council
10
CITY OF KITCHENER
OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO MAP 3
LAND USE
Low Rise Residential
´
High Rise Residential
Mixed Use
General Industrial Employment
Institutional
Open Space
Refer to Secondary Plan For Detail
Urban Growth Centre (Downtown)
Refer to Map 4
Area of Amendment
From Low Rise Residential
To Medium Rise Residential
REVISED:
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/002/S/JVW
SCHEDULE 'A'
0200
METRES
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/004/S/JVW
APPLICANT:
SCALE
1:6,000
2701098 ONTARIO INC.
FILE:
City of Kitchener
OPA20007LES_SchA
.mxd
134-152 SHANLEY ST.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING
DATE: APRIL 29, 2021
CITY OF KITCHENER
OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO MAP 5
SPECIFIC POLICY AREAS
´
23
Specific Policy Areas
18. 152 Shanley St
22. Industrial Employment Area Lands
23. St Leger St (1 Adam St)
39. Breithaupt Block Phase 3
Refer to Urban Growth Centre
and Secondary Plans for details
Area of Amendment
To Add To a Specific Policy Area
18. 152 Shanley St
18
22
39
REVISED:
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/002/S/JVW
SCHEDULE 'B'
0250
METRES
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/004/S/JVW
APPLICANT:
SCALE
1:8,000
2701098 ONTARIO INC.
FILE:
City of Kitchener
OPA20004BJVW_Map5
.mxd
DATE: APRIL 29, 2021
134-152 SHANLEY ST.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING
PROPOSED BY LAW
______ 2022
BY-LAW NUMBER ___
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended and By-
law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-laws for
the City of Kitchener
2701098 Ontario Inc. 134 and 152 Shanley Street)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 for the
lands specified above;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as
follows:
1. Schedule Number 83 -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 83 -law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by
removing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 2 on
Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto.
3. Schedule Number 83 -law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by
removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto.
4. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 83 -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
Medium Rise Residential Six Zone (RES-6) with Site Specific Provision (189) and Holding
Provision (24).
5. Zoning Grid -law Number 2019-051 is hereby
further amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 2 on Map No.
1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, and by zoning the Area 2 lands thereafter as
Medium Rise Residential Six Zone (RES-6) with Site Specific Provision (189) and Holding
Provision (24).
6. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 83 -law Number 2019-051 is hereby
further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1
attached hereto.
7. Section 20 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Holding Provision (24) thereto
as follows:
(24). Notwithstanding Section 7, of this By-law within the lands zoned RES-6 and shown
as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 83 of
no redevelopment shall be permitted until such time as a Record of
Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the
Environment, Cons This
Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt
of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks advising
that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to the satisfaction of the
MECP.
8. Section 19 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Site Specific Provision (189)
thereto as follows:
(189). Notwithstanding Sections 4.18, 4.19, 5.6, table 5-5, 7.2 table 7-1, and 7.3 table 7-
6 of this By-law within the lands zoned RES-6 and shown as being affected by this
subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 83
special regulations shall apply:
a) On-site Parking shall be provided as follows:
Parking for multiple dwellings shall be provided at a rate of 0.7 spaces per unit
plus 0.1 visitor spaces per unit.
b) Minimum and maximum height of the required visual barrier shall be 2.44
metres.
c) The maximum building height shall be 27.75 metres.
d) The maximum floor space ratio shall be 3.0.
e) The minimum front yard setback (Duke Street frontage) shall be 4.1 metres.
f) The minimum exterior side yard setback (Shanley Street frontage) shall be 5.8
metres.
g) The minimum side yard setback shall be:
i. 3.0 metres for buildings up to 5 storeys.
ii. 9.3 metres for any portion of the building 6 or more storeys.
h) The minimum rear yard setback shall be:
i. 9.0 metres for buildings up to 2 storeys.
ii. 12.0 metres for any portion of the building 3 or more storeys.
i) The following uses shall also be permitted on the ground floor:
convenience retail;
day care facilities;
health offices;
personal services;
offices;
restaurants;
social service establishments.
j) Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited.
9. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. __ (134-152
Shanley Street) comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of ,
2022.
________________________
Mayor
________________________
Clerk
R-5
R-6
SUBJECT AREA(S)
R-5
R-6R-5
R-5
R-5
OSR-2
R-5
R-4
129U
129U
R-5
AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051
R-6´
R-6
R-5 R-5
AREA 1 -
129U
129U
FROM RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE (R-6)
R-5
UNDER BY-LAW 85-1
R-5
5
R-5
WITH SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISION 128R
U
R-5
TO MEDIUM RISE RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
R-5
(RES-6) UNDER BY-LAW 2019-051
142R
WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (189)
R-5 129U
R-5
AND HOLDING PROVISION (24)
R-5
R-6
AREA 2 -
FROM RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE (R-5)
UNDER BY-LAW 85-1
R-5
R-5
WITH SPECIAL USE PROVISION 129U
R-6
R-5
129U
R-5
TO MEDIUM RISE RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
(RES-6) UNDER BY-LAW 2019-051
OSR-2
WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (189)
OSR-2
R-5P-1
AND HOLDING PROVISION (24)
R-6
R-6
BY-LAW 85-1
P-2
R-4
R-5
C-1 CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL ZONE
R-5
COM-1
R-5
D-6 WAREHOUSE DISTRICT ZONE
129U
R-5
I-1 NEIGHBOURHOOD INSTITUTIONAL ZONE
AREA 1
R-5
25
")M-1 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE
R-6
M-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE
I-1
R-5
353U MU-2 MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR
129U
R-5
ZONE
R-5
MU-3 HIGH INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR
R-5
R-5
C-1
ZONE
129U
13U
R-6
P-1 PUBLIC PARK ZONE
483R
R-5
I-1R-5
R-5
P-2 OPEN SPACE ZONE
R-4 RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE
R-5 129U
R-5
R-5
R-5 RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE
R-5
R-6 RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
129U
M-2
R-5
BY-LAW 2019-051
R-5
COM-1 LOCAL COMMERCIAL ZONE
R-5
R-5
R-5
M-1
R-5
OSR-2 OPEN SPACE: GREENWAYS ZONE
431R
R-5
R-6
M-2
RES-6 MEDIUM RISE RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
R-5
M-2
ZONE GRID REFERENCE
M-1
M-2
376U
R-5
R-5
431R
478R
SCHEDULE NO. 83
51H
SCHEDULE 75SCHEDULE 83
OF APPENDIX 'A'
R-5
M-2
R-5
MU-3 716R
SCHEDULE 74SCHEDULE 84
KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051
R-5
129U
M-1
717R,
D-6
D-6
MU-2 6H
R-6
ZONE LIMITS
468U
105R, 141U
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/004/S/JVW
050100
MAP NO. 1
METRES
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/002/S/JVW
2701098 ONTARIO INC.
SCALE 1:4,000
FILE:
City of Kitchener ZBA21004SJVW_MAP1
.mxd
DATE: JANUARY 12, 2022
134-152 SHANLEY ST.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: February 7, 2022
SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319
PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Manager of Development Review, 519-741-2200
ext. 7070
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 8
DATE OF REPORT: January 14, 2022
REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-041
SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment OPA20/005/W/JVW
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA20/013/W/JVW
660 BELMONT AVE W & PT OF BELMONTLANE E
Location Map: Subject Lands 660 Belmont Avenue West, a portion of Belmont Lane East
(legally described as BELMONT LANE E PL 343 KITCHENER LYING S OF CLAREMONT AV) &
lands legally described as PT LT 13 PL 343 KITCHENER AS IN 934710
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA20/005/W/JVW for 660 Belmont LP
Inc., 660 Belmont GP Inc., & City of Kitchener requesting a Specific Policy Area, be
refused; and
B. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/013/W/JVW for 660 Belmont LP
Inc., 660 Belmont GP Inc., & City of Kitchener be approved in the form shown in the
--2022-041 as Appendix
C. That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that applications for
minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment
Application ZBA20/013/W/JVW; and
D. That the portion of Belmont Lane East between Belmont Avenue West and Claremont
Avenue be declared as surplus to City needs, and
E. That a by-law to close the portion of Belmont Lane East between Belmont Avenue
West and Claremont Avenue be approved and that the by-law would not take effect
until registered on title to the lane and any costs associated with said by-law would
be borne by the purchaser, and, further
F. That Realty Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, be authorized to
negotiate the terms of two conditional Agreements of Purchase and Sale with the
owners of 660 Belmont Avenue West and 678-692 Belmont Avenue West for the sale
of the respective portions of Belmont Lane East, with fair market value to be
determined immediately prior to final site plan approval of 660 Belmont Avenue West
or 678-692 Belmont Avenue West, whichever comes first, where such sale is
conditional on:
i. Approval of the Agreement, including sale price, by Kitchener City Council,
ii. The final decision has been made on Official Plan Amendment
OPA20/005/W/JVW and Zoning By-law Amendment Application
ZBA20/013/W/JVW for 660 Belmont Avenue West,
iii. That the portions of the lane to be sold are consolidated with lands that have
frontage on a public street,
iv. Site Plan approval in principle is issued for 660 Belmont Avenue West or 678-
692 Belmont Avenue West, whichever comes first, and
v. That the purchaser grant access easements over the lane lands for both 660
Belmont Avenue West and 678-692 Belmont Avenue West in favour of each
property, and further,
vi. That the purchaser grant, at no cost to the City, all required easements for
City infrastructure and utilities.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to provide a planning recommendation to approve Zoning By-law
Amendment application ZBA20/013/W/JVW for 660 Belmont Avenue West, a portion of Belmont
Lane East (legally described as BELMONT LANE E PL 343 KITCHENER LYING S OF
CLAREMONT AV), as well as the lands legally described as PT LT 13 PL 343 KITCHENER AS IN
934710.
The portion of Belmont Lane East (legally described as BELMONT LANE E PL 343 KITCHENER
LYING S OF CLAREMONT AV) between Claremont Avenue and Belmont Avenue West is owned
by the City of Kitchener. This report also provides a recommendation to declare as surplus to City
needs, the portion of Belmont Lane East between Belmont Avenue West and Claremont
Avenue, and subject to Council approval, this report also authorizes Realty Services, in
consultation with the City Solicitor, to negotiate the terms of two conditional Agreements of
Purchase and Sale with the owners of 660 Belmont Avenue West and 678-692 Belmont Avenue
West for the sale of the respective portions of Belmont Lane East.
Community engagement included:
o Circulation of a preliminary circulations letter to property owners within 120m of the
subject lands;
o Installation of two large billboard notice signs on the property facing Belmont
Avenue West as well as the Iron Horse Trail;
o Two digital Neighbourhood Information Meetings;
o Ten small group information sessions;
o A guided site walk with the Friends of Belmont Village neighbourhood group; and
o Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was published in the Waterloo Region
Record on January 14, 2022 and directly mailed to all property owners within 120
metres of the subject lands and all community members that participated in the
application process. A copy of the notice was also emailed to all community
members that provided an email address through the application process, as well
as the Westmount and Cherry Park Neighbourhood Associations.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Planning staff is recommending refusal of the requested Official Plan Amendment and approval of
a revised Zoning By-law Amendment application to add Site Specific Provision (188) in Zoning By-
law 2019-051 to permit a mixed-use building with a maximum building height of 39.1 metres and
11 storeys, a two storey base in a building, and a street line stepback for a building of 2.7 metres.
Site Specific Provision (188) will implement Official Plan Policy 15.D.4.23, among others, which
permits the City to consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the
permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed-use building
containing residential units. The proposed development will provide a mixed-use building
containing residential units and ground floor commercial space. The building will feature a
pedestrian-scaled base, appropriate massing along the streetscape, and compatibility with
adjacent lands.
This report also provides a recommendation to declare as surplus to City needs, the portion of
Belmont Lane East between Belmont Avenue West and Claremont Avenue, and to authorize
Realty Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to negotiate the terms of two conditional
Agreements of Purchase and Sale with the owners of 660 Belmont Avenue West and 678-692
Belmont Avenue West for the sale of the respective portions of Belmont Lane East.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Kitchener has received a revised development concept for an 11 storey (39.1 metre)
tall mixed-use building with 910.7 square metres of ground floor commercial space and 132
residential units (including 92 one bedroom and 40 two-bedroom units). The original development
concept was for a 13 storey (49 metres) tall mixed-use building with 1090 square metres of ground
floor commercial space, and 163 residential units (including 115 one-bedroom units and 48 two-
bedroom units).
With the revisions to the development concept, the Official Plan amendment is no longer required.
The original Official Plan Amendment application requested to increase the maximum height to 13
storeys and 49 metres in height.
The revised Zoning By-law Amendment application is now requesting site specific zoning
regulations for an increased building height of 11 storey and 39.1 metres (whereas 8 storeys and
25 metres is permitted), a reduced tower setback from the podium of 2.7 metres (whereas 3.0
metres is required), and a reduced podium height of two storeys (whereas a minimum of three
storeys is required). A site-specific parking reduction is no longer being requested as 170 on-site
parking spaces are now shown (144 underground parking spaces and 26 surface parking spaces)
whereas the required parking is a minimum of 145 spaces and a maximum of 210 spaces. The
original Zoning By-law Amendment application requested to increase the maximum height to 13
storeys and 49 metres and to reduce the residential parking requirement from 147 spaces (0.9
spaces per dwelling unit) to 130 spaces (0.8 spaces per dwelling unit).
The owner of 660 Belmont Avenue West and 678-692 Belmont Avenue West is also requesting to
purchase the portion of Belmont Lane East between Belmont Avenue West and Claremont
Avenue, and to consolidate the lane lands with their adjacent lands on either side of the lane.
REPORT:
The subject lands are made up of three parcels, being the property municipally addressed as 660
Belmont Avenue West (owned by the applicant), the portion of Belmont Lane East adjacent to 660
Belmont Avenue West (owned by the City of Kitchener), as well as the lands between Belmont
Lane East and the Iron Horse Trail (owned by the applicant) which are legally described as PT LT
13 PL 343 KITCHENER AS IN 934710.
A letter describing the initial applications was circulated to property owners within 120 metres of
the subject lands on August 7, 2020.
A virtual Neighbourhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on December 17, 2020. A second
virtual NIM was held on Thursday, February 25, 2021. The Zoom registration reports recorded 97
different log-ons for the first meeting and 154 for the second meeting.
Planning Staff held ten one-hour small group sessions the week of March 15, 2021. These
meetings provided an opportunity for community members to share their perspectives, have a
chance to speak directly to Planning staff, and ask questions. In total, 88 people registered and
over 90 people attended one of the small group meetings.
Planning staff also attended a site walk on March 23, 2021. The site walk was led and organized
by community members known as the Friends of Belmont Village, and Planning staff attended.
The site walk was an opportunity for community members to identify their concerns, discuss their
comments in the field, and to ask questions of Planning staff.
A Comprehensive Engagement Report, which includes a question-and-answer summary table
from the two Neighbourhood Information Meetings and a summary of the Small Group comments
In response to community, internal and agency comments, Planning staff asked the applicant to
revise the development concept;
- Providing ground floor setbacks along Belmont Avenue West for outdoor spaces to support
active uses required on the ground floor,
- Ensuring that the interior ground floor ceiling heights will allow for a variety of commercial
uses,
- Design a pedestrian scaled base (podium of the building) that aligns with the existing built
form found in this section of Belmont Village,
- Design the building base with materials that are compatible with other buildings in Belmont
Village that are compatible with the tower materials,
- A tower design that has modern elements and is visually interesting,
- Utilize stepbacks on upper floors, as well as varying floor plates in the tower, to provide
visual breaks in the building elevations,
- Increase the tower setback from Belmont Avenue West,
- Bring the roof top amenity spaces to lower portions of the building,
- Reduce the total height in terms of the number of storeys,
- Reduce the total height in terms of metres,
- Provide affordable housing units as part of this development,
- Provide larger, multi-bedroom units within the building,
- Providing a publicly accessible, barrier-free connection through the site from Belmont
Avenue West to the Iron Horse Trail,
- Implement energy conversation measures in the building design,
- Provide on-site parking for the proposed commercial and residential uses without relying
on adjacent public streets,
- Ensure that all parking spaces are accessible to intended building occupants (requested
further explanation on the garage within the garage concept),
- Provide turning templates for all vehicles for all accesses, and
- Maintain the location and function of Belmont Lane East for access to the rear of the site
through the site design, regardless of ownership of the lane.
Planning Staff have received a revised development concept in response to public input, working
meetings, and discussions with internal staff. The revised development differs from the original
proposal as summarized below.
Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Height Storeys 13 storeys 11 storeys
th
Height Metres 49.0 metres (including the 13 39.1 metres (mechanical
storey which included a penthouse is not included in
mechanical penthouse and definition of building height as
occupied floor area (amenity there is no occupied space).
area). The total height to the top of
the mechanical penthouse
height is 43.10 metres.
Commercial Floor Area 1090 square metres 910.7 square metres
Number of Residential Units 163 (115 one-bedroom and 48 132 (92 one-bedroom and 40
two-bedroom) two-bedroom)
Residential Parking Rate 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit 0.9 (min) to 1.3 (max) spaces
per dwelling unit
Base (Podium) Height 3 storeys, 12.20 metres 2 storeys, 8.85 metres
Street Line Stepback from 3.0 metres 2.7 metres
Base (Podium)
The design of the building has also changed, with the revised proposal featuring varying floor
plates for several floors, a publicly accessible walkway from Belmont Avenue West to the Iron
Horse Trail (referred to as the mews), and a revised parking layout. The site plan is conceptual at
this point in the review process and will be finalized once the final outcome is known on the current
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. Site Plan approval is required for this
development and has not yet been initiated.
Planning Analysis:
Provincial, Regional, and City planning policy provide guidance that must be considered when
evaluating changes in land use permissions as discussed below.
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25.
Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister,
the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their
responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial
interest such as,
f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and
water services and waste management systems;
g) The minimization of waste;
h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities;
p) The appropriate location of growth and development;
q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public
transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;
r) The promotion of built form that,
(i) Is well-designed,
(ii) Encourages a sense of place, and
(iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive
and vibrant;
s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate.
These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial
Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to.
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and
-led planning system, the Provincial Policy Statement
sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land.
Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that a decision of the council of a municipality shall be
consistent with the policy statement that are in effect on the date of decision and shall conform with
the provincial plans that are in effect on that date, or shall not conflict with them, as the case may
be.
The PPS focuses growth and development within urban and rural settlement areas while supporting
the viability of rural areas. Land use must be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate
development to meet the full range of current and future needs, while achieving efficient
development patterns and avoiding significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose a
risk to public health and safety.
Efficient development patterns optimize the use of land, resources and public investment in
infrastructure and public service facilities. These land use patterns promote a mix of housing,
including affordable housing, employment, recreation, parks and open spaces, and transportation
choices that increase the use of active transportation and transit before other modes of travel.
The subject lands are shown as a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the 2014 Official Plan. These
lands are also shown as an Urban Corridor in the proposed Urban Structure developed through the
Central Neighbourhoods (Neighbourhood Planning Reviews project). Official Plan policies and
zoning regulations are used to ensure that land and resources are efficiently used, and that
intensification areas utilize existing infrastructure and support public service facilities which are
planned or available, such as public transportation and active transportation infrastructure.
Policy 1.1.1 of the PPS states that, Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by
a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-
being of the Province and municipalities over the long term;
b) accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential
types (including single-detached, additional residential units, multi-unit housing, affordable
housing and housing for older persons), employment (including industrial and commercial),
institutional (including places of worship, cemeteries and long-term care homes), recreation,
park and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs;
e) promoting 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;
g) ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available
to meet current and projected needs;
h) promoting development and land use patterns that conserve biodiversity; and
i) preparing for the regional and local impacts of a changing climate.
Policy 1.1.2 requires that sufficient land shall be made available to accommodate an appropriate
range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of up to 25 years, informed
by provincial guidelines.
The PPS notes that settlement areas are urban areas and rural settlement areas, and include cities,
towns, villages and hamlets, and policy 1.1.3.1 states that settlement areas shall be the focus of
growth and development. Policy 1.1.3.2 states that land use patterns within settlement areas shall
be based on densities and a mix of land uses which;
a) efficiently use land and resources; and
b) are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which
are planned or available and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical
expansion.
Further, policy 1.1.3.2 states that land use patterns within settlement areas shall also be based on
a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment in accordance with the
criteria in policy 1.1.3.3, where this can be accommodated. Policy 1.1.3.3 requires that Planning
authorities (such as the City of Kitchener) shall identify appropriate locations and promote
opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of
housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking
into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable
existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected
needs.
Plan. The hierarchy is intended to establish priority areas for intensification and to direct future
growth. These intensification areas serve different city, community and neighbourhood scaled
planned functions and may be different in terms of character, scale, function, and potential to
accommodate growth.
These intensification areas are planned for efficient development patterns to optimize the use of
land, resources and public investment in infrastructure and public service facilities. These areas are
planned for a mix of uses and housing options, in a built form that is transit supportive.
Centre (Downtown), Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), City Nodes, Community Nodes,
Neighbourhood Nodes, Urban Corridors and Arterial Corridors. They are connected by transit
corridors and the integrated transportation system which are key elements in shaping growth and
built form in the city. As Intensification Areas, these areas are generally intended to provide for a
broad range and mix of uses in an area of higher density and activity than surrounding areas. The
Urban Structure also identifies Community Areas, Industrial Employment Areas and Green Areas as
areas that are not intended to experience major changes.
Policy 1.4.1 states that to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities
required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area,
planning authorities shall:
a) maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 15
years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which
are designated and available for residential development; and
b) maintain at all times where new development is to occur, land with servicing capacity
sufficient to provide at least a three-year supply of residential units available through lands
suitably zoned to facilitate residential intensification and redevelopment, and land in draft
approved and registered plans.
Belmont Village is a planned intensification area, which is planned to provide for an appropriate
range and mix of housing options and densities required to meet projected requirements of current
ed locations in the Official Plan to
accommodate future growth and they are required to accommodate population projections set by
the Province. Directing growth and change to these intensification areas is key to maintaining stable
community areas throughout the City while upholding the Countryside Line.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the recommended zoning by-law amendment and Site Specific
Provision (188) is consistent with the PPS.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan)
Part of the Vision of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) is to ensure municipalities have sufficient
housing supply that reflects market demand and what is needed in local communities. Two of the
guiding principles of the Growth Plan are to prioritize intensification and higher densities in strategic
growth areas to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability and to
support a range and mix of housing options, including second units and affordable housing, to serve
all sizes, incomes, and ages of households.
To support the achievement of complete communities, municipalities will consider the use of
available tools to require that multi-unit residential developments incorporate a mix of unit sizes to
accommodate a diverse range of household sizes and incomes. Policy 2.2.2.1.a) requires that a
minimum of 50 per cent of all residential development occurring annually within the Region of
Waterloo be within the delineated Built-Up Area. Municipalities must support housing choice through
the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets established in the Growth Plan
by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities to meet the projected needs
of current and future residents.
represents an intensification first approach to development and city-building, one which focuses on
making better use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities, and less on continuously
expanding the urban area.
The Growth Plan directs Planning authorities in the Region of Waterloo to plan for a population of
923,000 people and 470,000 jobs by 2051. This would mean a population increase of approximately
2051 horizon is allocated to each municipality in the Region based on the following considerations:
the vast majority of growth will be directed to settlement areas that have a delineated built boundary,
have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems, and can support the achievement
of complete communities. As one of three cities in the Region, it can be expected that Kitchener will
be allocated a significant amount of the additional population allocation.
Built-Up Area, represents intensification and will help the City to meet density targets. MTSA and
Urban Corridors are planned to accommodate additional housing opportunities that will make use of
existing infrastructure and support the viability of existing transit. Housing policies of the Growth Plan
support the development of a range and mix of housing options that serves the needs of a variety of
household sizes, incomes and ages.
daily living throughout an entire lifetime by providing convenient access to an appropriate mix of
jobs, local services, public service facilities, and a full range of housing to accommodate a range of
incomes and household sizes. Complete communities support quality of life and human health by
encouraging the use of active transportation and providing high quality public open space, adequate
parkland, opportunities for recreation, and access to local and healthy food. Complete communities
support climate change mitigation by increasing the modal share for transit and active transportation
and by minimizing land consumption through building compact, mixed-use communities.
The redevelopment of 660 Belmont Avenue West is an opportunity to support Belmont Village as a
complete community and provide additional housing for more people within this community. Belmont
Village is a developing complete community in its current form, and by adding additional dwellings
to this intensification area will provide new housing for additional people to live within a complete
community. Adding housing units within a mixed-use community also helps to support the non-
residential uses.
Building compact and complete communities, and protecting agricultural lands, water resources and
natural areas will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure communities are more resilient
to the impacts of a changing climate. The Province of Ontario has committed to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Kitchener has committed to a 50%
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
To support the achievement of complete communities that are healthier, safer, and more equitable,
choices about where and how growth occurs in the GGH need to be made carefully. Better use of
land and infrastructure can be made by directing growth to settlement areas and prioritizing
intensification, with a focus on strategic growth areas, including the Urban Growth Centre (UGC)
and MTSAs, as well as brownfield sites and greyfields. Concentrating new development in these
areas provides a focus for investments in transit as well as other types of infrastructure and public
service facilities to support forecasted growth, while also supporting a more diverse range and mix
of housing options.
The redevelopment of 660 Belmont Avenue West will provide for the redevelopment of a former
automotive service centre with a new mixed-use building. The Applicant has received a Record of
Site Condition from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks. The existing single-
storey commercial building that was constructed in 1961 is proposed to be demolished. The Site
building has been utilized for automotive repair and maintenance operations since the Site was
developed for commercial purposes in 1961. A mixed-use building with ground floor commercial
uses aligns with the planned function of Belmont Village Urban Corridor. The redevelopment of the
site will bring new people, jobs, and commercial businesses to the site.
housing supply in the city. MTSA and Urban Corridors are planned as complete communities,
offering a variety of unit types and non-residential uses that support surrounding the community. All
the intensification areas throughout the City are planned for increased density and are all within the
delineated Built-Up Area.
Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will:
a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and
convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities;
b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all
ages, abilities, and incomes;
c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units
and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate
the needs of all household sizes and incomes;
d) expand convenient access to:
i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and
convenient use of active transportation;
ii. public service facilities, co-located and integrated in community hubs;
iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly-accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and
other recreational facilities; and
iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture;
e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open
spaces;
f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability
g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development.
Policy 2.2.4 requires that planning be prioritized for MTSAs on priority transit corridors, including
zoning in a manner that implements the policies of this Plan. MTSAs on priority transit corridors will
be planned for a minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those
that are served by light rail transit or bus rapid transit.
light rail transit and the ION stations are Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) that are required to
achieve the minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare. Although the
subject site is located outside of the proposed MTSA boundary, it is within 635 metres of an ION
station (approximately 800 metre walk via Gildner Green and Mt. Hope Street). While the subject
lands are shown as an MTSA in the 2014 Official Plan, these lands are also shown as an Urban
Corridor in the proposed Urban Structure developed through the current MTSA planning process
(Neighbourhood Planning Reviews project).
Growth is planned and focused for Belmont Village because it is a planned intensification area and
was identified as an MTSA in the 2014 Official Plan and shown as an Urban Corridor in the proposed
Urban Structure developed through current MTSA planning process underway.
Policy 2.2.6.2 states that municipalities will support the achievement of complete communities by
planning to accommodate forecasted growth to the horizon of the Growth Plan, planning to achieve
the minimum intensification and density targets in the Growth Plan, consider the range and mix of
housing options and densities of the existing housing stock, and planning to diversify the overall
housing stock across the municipality.
Intensification areas like Belmont Village are planned to accommodate the growth forecasts
prescribed by the Province and are planned to support active transportation (Iron Horse Trail, on-
street bicycle lanes, sidewalks, etc.) and public transportation (high frequency bus routes and the
ION). Compact communities with increased densities reduce the need for urban expansions of the
City on agricultural lands and will overall reduce greenhouse gas emissions by making better use of
land and infrastructure by reducing the needs for private automobile use.
Although the proposed development features one and two bedroom dwelling units, these type of
units are a different housing choice and form when compared to existing ground-oriented low-rise
housing stock in the surrounding community and can provide new units for members of the
community to age in place.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the recommended zoning by-law amendment conforms to the
Growth Plan.
Regional Official Plan (ROP)
-
Official Plan (ROP). The Urban Area designation of the ROP has the physical infrastructure and
community infrastructure to support major growth and social and public health services (ROP
Section 2.D).
Section 2.B states that virtually all
Township Urban Area, with a substantial portion of this growth directed to the existing Built-Up Area
of the region through reurbanization. Focal points for reurbanization include UGCs, Township UGCs,
MTSAs, Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes.
Section 2.C establishes the policies associated with the Reurbanization Target, which are policies
established in conformity with the 2006 version of the Growth Plan. It is intended that new residential
development occurring within the built boundary will be counted towards the achievement of the
reurbanization target set out in the Region of Waterloo Official Plan.
Section 2.C.2 states that area municipalities will establish policies in their official plans and other
supporting documents to ensure that by 2015 and each year thereafter a minimum of 45 per cent of
all new residential development occurring annually within the region as a whole will be constructed
within the Built-Up Area.
The ROP supports a Planned Community Structure based on a system of Nodes, Corridors and
other areas that are linked via an integrated transportation system (ROP objective 2.1 and 2.2).
Components of the planned Community Structure include the Urban Area, nodes, corridors and
other development areas including UGCs and MTSAs.
This Planned Community Structure reflects the intent of the Regional Growth Management Strategy
and provides a framework for decision-making on a wide range of issues, including land use and
transportation planning among others.
Section 2.D.1 states that in preparing or reviewing planning studies, or in reviewing development
applications or site plans, the Region and/or Area Municipalities will ensure that development
occurring within the Urban Area is planned and developed in a manner that:
a) Supports the Planned Community Structure described in this Plan;
b) Is serviced by a municipal drinking-water supply system and a municipal waste-water
system;
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;
d) Protects the natural environment, and surface water and groundwater resources;
e) Conserves cultural heritage resources and supports the adaptive reuse of historic
buildings;
f) Respects the scale, physical character and context of established neighbourhoods in areas
where reurbanization is planned to occur;
and
h) Promotes building designs and orientations that incorporate energy conservation features
and the use of alternative and/or renewable energy systems.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Region of Waterloo Official Plan.
Regional staff have indicated that they are supportive of higher density within the MTSA area and
Urban Corridors of the Region as the type of mixed use, high density development proposed on site
supports the Planned Community Function of the Regional Official Plan.
Regional Planning staff have no objections to the proposed applications and provided comments
City of Kitchener Official Plan
ive,
A complete
community creates and provides access to a mix of land uses including a full range and mix of
housing types. A complete community also supports the use of public transit and active
transportation, enabling residents to meet most of their daily needs within a short distance of their
homes. Planning for a complete community will aid in reducing the cost of infrastructure and
servicing, encourage the use of public transit and active modes of transportation, promote social
interaction, and foster a sense of community.
Official Plan policy 17.E.12.6 of the Official Plan notes that the City will consider all applications to
amend the Zoning By-law and will provide notice of such application in accordance with the
provisions and regulations of the Planning Act.
Urban Structure
which include the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), City
Nodes, Community Nodes, Neighbourhood Nodes, Urban Corridors and Arterial Corridors. They are
connected by transit corridors and the integrated transportation system which are key elements in
shaping growth and built form in the city.
Policy 3.C.2.1 states that lands within Urban Structure Components will be designated an
appropriate land use to achieve their planned function. The policies pertaining to each Urban
Structure component stipulate what the applicable land use designations may include.
The lands are identified as an MTSA in the 2014 Official Plan. In the Official Plan on Map 2 Urban
Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for the Grand River Hospital Station. Section
3.C.2.16 of the Official Plan indicates that MTSAs are designated in the Regional Official Plan and
walking radius centred around the location of the Rapid Transit Stops. In Section 3.C.2.18 it states
that the City, in collaboration with the Region and in accordance with Regional Official Plan, will
prepare Station Area Plans for each MTSA area located outside the UGC.
The Official Plan provides direction for detailed station area planning exercises, which have been
completed for Central, Midtown and Rockway stations areas. The subject lands are located within
the PARTS Midtown Plan. During the development of the Midtown Secondary Plan, the boundaries
of the MTSA were further refined. The subject lands were removed from the MTSA area and were
identified as an Urban Corridor. In December 2019, at a statutory public meeting for the
Neighbourhood Planning Reviews project, City Staff presented a report with the revised boundaries
which identified the subject lands as Urban Corridor.
Since then, the Region of Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review project and as
part of that work, the Region proposed MTSA boundaries which were endorsed by Regional Council.
The westerly boundary of the draft Midtown Secondary Plan and Region Council-endorsed MTSA
boundary is the Iron Horse Trail.
The conceptual MTSA boundary in the Official Plan is proposed to be amended to align with
the westerly boundary of the Midtown Secondary Plan
Plan and revised MTSA boundaries. As such, the subject lands are planned as an Urban Corridor
intensification area.
Belmont Village is an intensification area in the city that is planned to redevelop to accommodate
growth. The subject lands are identified as an MTSA in the 2014 Official Plan. During the
development of the Midtown Secondary Plan, the boundaries of the MTSA were further refined. The
subject lands were removed from the MTSA area and were identified as part of the Urban Corridor.
Both MTSAs and Urban Corridors are intensification areas in the City. While identified conceptually
as an MTSA in the 2014 Official Plan, the subject lands have since been identified as an Urban
Structure, and the related policies permit a smaller scale of development when compared to MTSAs.
Urban Corridor Intensification Area
identifying priority areas for intensification. The planned function of the Urban Corridor is to provide
for a range of retail and commercial uses and intensification opportunities that should be transit
supportive. Urban Corridors function as the spine of a community as well as a destination for
surrounding neighbourhoods. Strengthening linkages and establishing compatible interfaces
between the Urban Corridors and surrounding Community Areas is a priority for development in
these areas. Land use designations may include Mixed Use and/or Commercial depending on the
context and the range of uses deemed appropriate for achieving the planned function of that Urban
Corridor. Urban Corridors are generally linear in form and are located along existing or planned
transit corridors. They are intended to have strong pedestrian linkages and be integrated with
neighbouring residential, and employment uses.
Housing Policies
Policy 4.1.1 states a housing objective of the City 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. Policy 4.C.1.12 notes the City favours a land use
pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a
whole and within neighbourhoods. Policy 4.C.1.1 states that the City will maintain at all times the
ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of ten years through residential
intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which are designated and available for
residential development.
Intensification areas like Belmont Village are planned to provide for a range of retail and commercial
uses and intensification opportunities and are planned to change over time. Concentrating mid-rise
and high-rise developments within intensification areas brings a variety and mix of housing types to
existing communities. The purpose of the Official Plan is to guide the growth and development of
the city to the year 2031, with balanced growth with an increased focus on intensification, particularly
in the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), Major Transit Station Areas, nodes and corridors, which
maximizes the use of our existing infrastructure and services.
Policy 4.C.1.8 of the Official Plan provides direction on what to consider when a site-specific zoning
regulation is proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands. The overall
impact of the special zoning regulations will be reviewed by the City to ensure;
a) That any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are
appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community
character of the established neighbourhood,
b) Where front yard setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in established
neighbourhoods, the requested front yard setback should be similar to adjacent properties
and supports and maintain the character of the streetscape and the neighbourhood.
c) New additions and modifications to existing buildings are to be directed to the rear yard and
are to be discouraged in the front yard and side yard abutting a street, except where it can
be demonstrated that the addition and/or modification is compatible in scale, massing, design
and character of adjacent properties and is in keeping with the character of the streetscape.
d) New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas
of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to
mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy.
e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for
adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an
appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site.
f)The impact of each special zoning regulation or variance will be reviewed prior to formulating
a recommendation to ensure that a deficiency in the one zoning requirement does not
compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and
neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning deficiencies.
In considering Official Plan policies regarding where a site-specific zoning regulation is proposed to
facilitate residential intensification, Planning staff are of the opinion that Site Specific Provision (188)
meets the intent of Policies in section 4.C.1.8. The proposed massing is appropriate for the site and
the scale is compatible with the built form and the community character of the established
neighbourhood and planned function of the intensification area. The setback from Belmont Avenue
West is appropriate for a commercial use, a two-storey base is appropriate, and the recommended
stepback of the tower is sufficient. The subject lands can function appropriately and will not create
unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties. Adequate on-site parking spaces and
appropriate landscaped/amenity area will be provided on site.
Sustainable Development
redevelopment strives to be increasingly sustainable by encouraging, supporting and, where
appropriate, requiring:
a) compact development and efficient built form;
b) environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and
construction practices;
c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into
building and site design;
d) the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and,
e) transit-supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active
modes of transportation such as cycling and walking.
Development applications are required to demonstrate that the proposal meets the sustainable
development policies of the Plan and that sustainable development design standards are achieved.
At the OPA and ZBA phase, policy 7.C.4.6 permits the City to develop bonusing regulations in the
Zoning By-law for development satisfying the sustainable development design standards. The
bonusing regulations may include provisions permitting building elements with a demonstrated
benefit to the community.
As part of the revised development submission, the Applicant has provided a letter outlining
sustainable development initiatives that will be further explored at the site planning stage. Due to
changes to the Planning Act, Planning Staff are not recommending site-specific zoning that would
require a Section 37 Bonusing agreement. Planning staff will work with the applicant at the site
planning stage to implement sustainable development measures.
The proposal is a compact and efficient development that redevelops an existing property in an
existing community within an identified Intensification Area. The development is transit supportive
and the site is located in close proximity to existing transit (bus routes) and within 635 metres of an
ION station (approximately 800 metre walk via Gildner Green and Mt. Hope Street).
Mixed Use Land Use Designation
The Mixed Use land use designation is intended to be flexible and responsive to land use pattern
changes and demands and permit a broad range of uses at different scales and intensities
urban structure level. As such,
an appropriate and compatible mix and range of commercial, retail, institutional and residential uses,
at different scales and intensities will be encouraged and supported within lands designated Mixed
Use depending on their
applied to allow for and promote a compatible mix of uses within the same building or on the same
site. A mix of uses within the same building is preferred. The Mixed Use land usedesignation plays
an important role in achieving the planned function of the Intensification Areas of the City Urban
Structure. Lands designated Mixed Use have the capacity to accommodate additional density and
intensification of uses. The permitted scale and intensity of uses and development is dependent
upon the Urban Structure Component the site is within and the context of the site.
Policy 15.D.4.2 notes that permitted residential uses may include medium and high-rise residential
uses. Policy 15.D.4.3 permits non-residential uses including compatible commercial uses such as,
but not limited to, retail, commercial entertainment, restaurants, financial establishments; personal
services, office, health-related uses such as health offices and health clinics and institutional uses
such as daycare facilities, religious institutions, and educational establishments, social service
establishments and studio and artisan-related uses.
The lands are designated Mixed Use which permit an appropriate and compatible mix and range of
commercial, retail, institutional and residential uses. Different scales and intensities of these uses is
encouraged within an Urban Corridor. Lands designated as Mixed Use play an important role in
achieving the planned function of the Urban Corridor Intensification Area.
Policy 15.D.4.6 notes that the zoning of individual sites designated Mixed Use may not allow the full
range and scale of uses at every location. Permitted uses and scale of uses will be dependent upon
the Urban Structure Component the site is within and its planned function and density, compatibility
with surrounding areas, technical considerations and other contextual or site-specific factors.
Collectively, all the lands designated Mixed Use will achieve the intended mix of uses and scale
deemed appropriate.
Not all individual sites designated Mixed Use allow for the full range and scale of uses permitted by
the land use designation policies. In this case, additional height is permitted within Urban Corridors
in accordance with Policy 15.D.4.21.
Policy 15.D.4.17.b) regulates the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for all new residential or mixed-use
building development or redevelopment. For lands designated Mixed Use, a minimum FSR of 0.6
and a maximum of 2.0 applies for lands within an Urban Corridor. However, Policy 15.D.4.19 permits
a minimum FSR of 1.0 and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of up to 4.0 for individual properties where
higher density development or redevelopment is desirable and appropriate, where the property abuts
or has direct access to an arterial or collector road, the property is adequately buffered from lands
designated Low Rise Residential, and where there is adequate existing or planned infrastructure.
The implementing zoning (MIX-2) for the subject lands permits a maximum FSR of 4.0.
The proposed development, with all lands consolidated (based on the total consolidated lot area of
all parcels), is within the permitted Floor Space Ratio range of 1.0 to 4.0 in accordance with Policy
15.D.4.19.
Policy 15.D.4.22 speaks to the permitted height of a building and states that generally no building
will exceed 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is greater at the highest-grade elevation, on
lands designated Mixed Use as an Urban Corridor. However, Policy 15.D.4.23 allows the City to
consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building
height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed-use building containing residential
units. It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the
streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable policies
within this Plan are satisfied. Site Specific Provision (188) implements Official Plan 15.D.4.23.
With respect to the pedestrian scaled base, Site Specific Provision (188) requires abase (podium)
height of two storeys whereas the MIX-2 zone requires a minimum of three storeys. This provision
is being recommended to ensure that the ground floor commercial and second residential floor are
at a scale that is similar to other existing bu
Buildings (also known as the tall building guidelines) within the Urban Design Manual note that a tall
e
streetscape and public realm. This can include traditional multi-storey podiums, portions of a tower
which extend to the ground floor and structured parking areas. Building bases should feature a high
percentage of transparency and bases should maximize connectivity and permeability at ground
level, creating and reinforcing pedestrian & cycling connections. Bases should not exceed 70 metres
in overall building length.
The ground floor is proposed to be commercial and is designed to feature a large percentage of
glazing. Further, the length of the base is approximately 60 metres, with a cantilevered upper floor
section (the mews) at the north end of the building to allow pedestrian access around the side of the
building and to the rear of the site and to the Iron Horse Trail. Further, balconies for residential units
along Belmont Avenue West are provided along the front elevation, and the street-facing setback
has been provided to support outdoor amenity and commercial supportive uses. The guidelines
require that the lower 5 metres of the base should be designed with high quality materials, be highly
articulated, and be designed with engaging and visually expressive architectural features and human
scaled massing. The proposed street facing ground floor elevations feature the residential and
multiple commercial entries and a high percentage of glazing. The floor to ceiling height of the ground
floor is 5.4 metres which exceeds the guideline minimum of 4.5 metres.
In considering the massing along the streetscape, the base and tower stepback of 2.7 metres
reduces the overall massing along the street facing elevation. While Site Specific Provision (188)
allows for a slight reduction of the tower stepback from 3.0 metres to 2.7 metres, the stepback is
sufficien
building guidelines note that that a tower of this size is considered a Large Slab and note that the
appropriateness of larger or slab-like forms will partially be a function of site size, shape and
orientation, and whether a large tower can achieve good separation and compatibility while
mitigating unwanted impacts. Actual and perceived massing impacts of large slab towers can be
mitigated by breaking up their mass both horizontally and vertically, through the creative
incorporation of changes in materials, balcony and floorplate design, architectural features and
unit/amenity locations.
The proposed development concept features different floor plates throughout the building. The third
and eighth floors are recessed and floors 9-11 have the smallest floor plates with increased setbacks
from the north and south ends of the building. Further, not all floors have the same elevation design,
and there is a variety of materials used on the design of the building.
With respect to the compatibility of the proposed development on adjacent lands, it is important to
reference the Official Plan defin
land uses and building forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony
within an area without causing unacceptable adverse effects, adverse environmental impacts or
shadows over private amenity areas or on building façades for an unacceptable duration, issues of
privacy, overlook conditions, negative microclimatic impacts, light pollution (such as light trespass
or glare), odour, vibration, noise pollution urban heat island effects, visual clutter or obstruction of
views and/or vistas. And finally, Adverse Effects, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act,
means one or more of: a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can
be made of it; b) injury or damage to property or plant or animal life; c) harm or material discomfort
to any person; d) an adverse effect on the health of any person; e) impairment of the safety of any
person; f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use; g) loss of enjoyment of
normal use of property; and, h) interference with normal conduct of business.
As noted above, Policy 15.D.4.22 already permits a building height of 8 storeys or 25 metres,
whichever is greater at the highest grade elevation, for lands designated Mixed Use as an Urban
Corridor, including the subject lands and all lands on the east side of Belmont Avenue West in Upper
Belmont. This is a more restrictive policy than 15.D.4.21 which notes that there is no maximum
building height on lands designated Mixed Use within an MTSA. These two policies reflect the
different built form expectations between development in an MTSA compared to development in an
Urban Corridor which implement the Urban Structure hierarchy. In considering compatibility of the
additional height recommended in Site Specific Provision (188), consideration must be had for the
existing land use permissions and building form, as well as planned function of Belmont Avenue
West and existing land use permissions (potential future built form).
Site Specific Provision (188) would permit additional height for a property that is already planned for
redevelopment, within a corridor that is also planned for redevelopment and growth. Planning staff
are of the opinion that an 11 storey building with a height of 39.1 metres can be mutually tolerant
and capable of existing together in harmony with the planned function of Belmont Avenue West.
While this built form is different from existing built form, the additional height is not anticipated to
cause unacceptable adverse effects, adverse environmental impacts, or adverse impacts.
Building design should mitigate cumulative wind impacts through base design, stepbacks,
projections, balcony design, building massing and architectural articulation. The City required a
shadow analysis and a wind study to demonstrate how the proposed development is designed to
mitigate unwanted microclimatic impacts. When evaluating shadowing, at least 5 hours of cumulative
direct sunlight must be maintained daily to nearby sidewalks and open spaces under equinox
conditions, beginning with sidewalks located on the opposite site of adjacent ROWs. Updated
shadow and wind analysis will be required at the site planning stage to confirm preliminary findings
to ensure that these impacts will be addressed and mitigated.
The subject site is well positioned between the commercial businesses on the west side of Belmont
Avenue West and Gildner Green (City-owned park) limiting concerns for residential overlook. The
proposed building is not expected to create adverse light pollution, odour, vibration, or noise
pollution. A building that is 8 or 11 storeys will alter the skyline and may partially obstruct some
existing views and vistas, but it is not anticipated that this would be adverse in nature.
While the development concept does propose to remove some existing trees, the overall quality of
the natural environment will not be substantially impacted. New native trees will be required to
compensate for tree removals. It is anticipated that while the proposed building will be different from
the existing built form in Upper Belmont Village, a new building of 8 or 11 storeys will not cause harm
or material discomfort to any person or have an adverse effect on the health of any person.
Further, Policy 15.D.4.24 notes that the City may impose minimum façade and building height
regulations in the Zoning By-law.
Urban Design policies in the 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 urban design Urban Design Manual.
Official Plan Conclusions
Planning staff is recommending refusal of the requested Official Plan Amendment and approval of a
revised Zoning By-law Amendment application to add Site Specific Provision (188) in Zoning By-law
2019-051 to permit a mixed-use building with a maximum building height of 39.1 metres and 11
storeys, a two storey base of a building, and a street line stepback for a building of 2.7 metres.
Belmont Village is an intensification area in the city that is planned to redevelop to accommodate
growth. The subject lands are identified as an MTSA in the 2014 Official Plan. During the
development of the Midtown Secondary Plan, the boundaries of the MTSA were further refined. The
subject lands were removed from the MTSA area and were identified as part of the Urban Corridor.
An Urban Corridor is lower on the hierarchy of intensification areas
and the related policies permit a smaller scale of development when compared to MTSAs.
Policy 15.D.4.22 permits a building height of 8 storeys or 25 metres, whichever is greater at the
highest grade elevation. Site Specific Provision (188) implements Official Plan 15.D.4.23 which
allows the City to consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the
permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed-use building
containing residential units.
Intensification areas like Belmont Village are planned to provide for a range of retail and commercial
uses and intensification opportunities and are planned to change over time.
The lands are designated Mixed Use which permit an appropriate and compatible mix and range of
commercial, retail, institutional and residential uses. Different scales and intensities of these uses is
encouraged within an Urban Corridor.
The proposed development, with all lands consolidated (based on the total consolidated lot area of
all parcels), is within the permitted Floor Space Ratio range of 1.0 to 4.0 in accordance with Policy
15.D.4.19.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the recommended zoning by-law amendment conforms to the
Official Plan.
Kitchener Growth Management Strategy
The Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS) was approved in January 2009 and helps to
ensure that growth is managed effectively to achieve the required density and intensification targets,
through a desired built form and function which will enhance the quality of life in Kitchener. The
Kitchener Growth Management Plan (KGMP) is based on the principle that maximizing the use of
existing infrastructure is preferred and that planning for and implementing intensification is a high
priority.
Planning recommendation is in compliance with the KGMS and KGMP by supporting
appropriate intensification that better utilizes the existing infrastructure while ensuring that any future
development be compatible and complementary to the existing neighbourhood, while bringing new
residents into a stable community.
Zoning By-law 2019-051 & Recommended Zoning By-law Amendment
The lands are zoned as MIX-2: Mixed Use Two. The purpose of this zone is to accommodate a
variety of uses within mixed use buildings and mixed-use developments at a medium density on
certain lands within Urban Corridors. There are three existing Site Specific Provisions as follows;
(128) states that the number of required parking spaces for all uses within an existing building
shall be the lesser of the number of existing parking spaces or the number of parking spaces
required by Section 5 of this By-law.
(142) states that a visual barrier between a parking lot and a residential zone will not be
required, that the minimum yard abutting a residential zone shall be 0 metres, that the
minimum rear yard setback shall be 0 metres, and that a dwelling unit may be located on the
ground floor of a mixed use building provided that such dwelling unit is oriented toward the
Iron Horse Trail.
(49) states that the minimum floor space ratio shall be 1 and the maximum floor space ratio
shall be 4.
Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) zones were applied to the Belmont Village Mixed Use Corridor in 2012
through a City-initiated zoning by-law amendment. That work was undertaken to implement the
nodes and corridor planned function that was established in 2001 when Council approved a new
commercial policy structure in an amendment to the 1994 Official Plan. A City-initiated zoning by-
law amendment in 2012 applied Mixed Use (MU) Corridor zones to the entire Belmont Mixed Use
Corridor - the land use designations were already in place and no Official Plan Amendment was
required. All properties in the corridor were zoned as either Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-
1) or Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2). No parcels were changed to High Intensity Mixed
Use Corridor (MU-3). In assigning the Mixed Use Corridor zone categories, staff had regard for the
Official Plan designation for Mixed Use Corridors which emphasizes the importance of achieving a
built form that is compatible with surrounding residential neighbourhoods. Generally, the MU-1 zone
was applied in areas that abut low rise residential development. The MU-2 zone is proposed in
locations where development could be adequately separated from low rise residential development
(along the east side of Belmont Avenue or on larger development sites) or to recognize existing
conditions (such as existing apartment buildings).
The new MIX zones that were applied recently as part of the City's new Zoning By-law essentially
brought forward similar permissions as the MUC zones. The MIX zones were applied as part of stage
1 (non-residential zones) of the Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy) project. On
April 29, 2019 council passed Stage 1 of the new zoning bylaw for Kitchener. Zoning By-law 2019-
051 received 3 appeals. On December 4, 2020, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) rendered
an oral decision to scope the remaining appeal to be site-specific in nature, with the remainder of
Zoning By-law 2019-051 coming into effect. The effective date of Zoning By-law 2019-051 is April
29, 2019.
Planning staff is recommending approval of a revised Zoning By-law Amendment application to add
Site Specific Provision (188) in Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit a mixed-use building with a
maximum building height of 39.1 metres and 11 storeys, a two storey base in a building, and a street
line stepback for a building of 2.7 metres. By including the height and stepback in Site Specific
Provision (188), the built form for future development on this site will be carefully managed.
Urban Design Manual
Part B of the Urban Design Manual contains area specific guidelines that are specific to drive-through
facilities, mixed-use corridors and Queen Street Placemaking. The Mixed-Use Corridor (now known
as Urban Corridors) Area Specific Guidelines dates back to 2003. In 2003, Kitchener City Council
supported the general principles outlined in the Mixed-Use Corridor Urban Design Brief and directed
staff to undertake a final public consultation process prior to their adoption and ultimate inclusion in
Mixed-Use Corridor Design Brief,
largely as it exists today.
One of the Corridor Strategies in the Belmont Village Corridor is to have a built form that maintains
low-rise, compact urban form in Upper Belmont (north of Glasgow Street) (2-5 storeys with step
backs for increased height) and encouragesmid-rise forms (3-8 storeys) in Lower Belmont (south of
Glasgow Street) with opportunities for high-rise forms (10 storeys). The subject site is identified as
a redevelopment opportunity and it is noted that the underutilized 0.25 ha property is encouraged to
redevelop with a low rise (3-4 storey) mixed use building with minor stepback on top floor if over 3
storeys in height. It is also noted that the corridor has many underutilized properties that could be
redeveloped or intensified.
The current Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief was brought into the current UDM format in Part B in
2010 (last updated 2012). Since the 2005 Council approval of the Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief,
the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan, Kitchener Official
Plan, Zoning By-law 2019-051, and Part A of the UDM have been revised, and the updated policy
direction has not been reflected in those older sections of the Urban Design Manual.
When considering urban design direction for development applications, it is appropriate to look at
Section 11 of the Official Plan and the current sections of the Urban Design Manual. Part A of the
Urban Design Manual contains Urban Design Guidelines that were approved between 2017 and
2019. There are 13 sections that are applied based on the geography and planned function of a
property (Downtown, Nodes and Corridors, etc) as well as based on the building typology (tall
building, mid-rise building, etc).
Design for Tall Buildings Guidelines (tall building guidelines)
sections that apply to the subject lands, including City-wide design guidelines. All guidelines will be
applied through the site planning stage, but the Design for Tall Buildings Guidelines specifically were
relied upon in reviewing the appropriateness of the proposed building and current applications.
In Kitchener, a tall building is defined as any building that is more than eight storeys in height. When
considering the appropriate placement of building mass, the design should respond to both the
existing and planned context of the area. Proper compatibility creates harmonious relationships
between a tall building and its surroundings. Adjacent built form can be complemented through
compatible height, scale, massing, and materials. Transitions should be provided to surrounding
urban contexts, accounting for both the existing context and the planned vision for an area. Setbacks
(the distance from property lines to a building) and stepbacks (the distance from the edge of the
building base to upper-level base storeys, the tower, and top features) should be implemented. A
tall building should not interrupt or impose upon an existing or planned neighbourhood character or
the public realm. All tall buildings should have a human-scaled relationship to the public realm. In
areas with existing or planned tall and/or mid-rise buildings, relative height, separation, overlook,
creative tower orientation, compact floor plate size and point-tower form should all be considered as
factors contributing to good compatible design. Tall buildings create substantial viewsheds, are
visually prominent, occupy key locations, are often visible and perceivable from significant distances
Full implementation of the Urban Design Manual
site planning process for this development proposal.
Sale of Belmont Lane East
The Zehr Group has requested to purchase the portion of Belmont Lane East between Belmont
Avenue West and Claremont Avenue. If purchased from the City, the lane would be divided into two
parcels and transferred to the owner of 660 Belmont Avenue West (660 Belmont GP Inc) and the
owner of 678-692 Belmont Avenue West (2066184 Ontario Limited) as shown below.
There is no proposed change in use for 678-692 Belmont Avenue West at this time. The portion of
the laneway adjacent to 660 Belmont Avenue West (Parcel B) is proposed to form part of the 660
Belmont Avenue West redevelopment. Due to underlying infrastructure, the laneway itself cannot
be built upon. However, by owning the laneway, Zehr Group would be able to consolidate 660
Belmont Avenue West with the strip of parking to the east of the lane. The lane would serve as
access to the proposed mixed-use development and would enable the potential floor space to
increase by increasing the total lot area. If Parcel B is consolidated with the adjoining property, 660
Belmont Avenue West, the lane would serve as access to the proposed mixed-use development and
would enable the potential floor space to increase from approximately 0.62 acres in size to 1.05
acres.
The lane closure proposal was circulated to all utility providers, Transportation, Fire, Engineering,
and Operations staff for review and comment. The owner of 638 Belmont Avenue West (the property
to the east) was provided notice of the request to close and sell the laneway. The following
easements would be required to be granted by the purchaser, at no cost to the City:
Easement in favour of the City for access to sanitary and storm water sewers. The precise
easement area is to be determined via reference plan.
Easement in favour of Kitchener Wilmot Hydro (hydro poles are located between the laneway
and parking strip to the east). The precise easement area is to be determined via reference
plan.
Since the laneway is to be split and sold as two parcels, easements will be required providing
the owner of Parcel A with access to Parcel B, and vice versa. This would ensure the
adjoining property owners continue to have access to the entire length of the laneway.
Notice of the sale of Belmont Lane, a City-owned property, is outlined in Chapter 177 Sale Real
Property, before selling any real property
owned by the City, Council shall give notice to the public of the proposed sale. Section 177.6.2
stipulates that notice to the public can consist of one ore more of the following types:
a) by advertisement in a daily newspaper of general circulation;
b) by listing with a real estate broker or by direct multiple listing with the Kitchener -Waterloo
Real Estate Board;
c) by posting of a "For Sale" sign on the property;
d) by advertisement on local cable television, Internet or other telecommunication;
e) by personal service, registered mail, certified mail, courier or fax;
f) by a report of a City department available to the public; or
g)by listing on the Council or Committee of Council agenda.
While the initial circulation letter and the first Neighbourhood Information Meeting did not discuss the
lane purchase request, there was quite a bit discussion on process at the second Neighbourhood
Information meeting and in the follow up small group meetings and the site walk.
Additional information on the lane purchase requested was also included in the Comprehensive
Engagement Report (attached as Appendix
second Neighbourhood Information Meeting to include the lane purchase request.
The notice of the February 7, 2022 Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting will also
include notice of the potential sale of Belmont Lane East.
Reports, Studies and Technical Memos
The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment and are available on the planning applications webpage:
Affordable Housing Letter
Architectural Design Package include Building Elevations, Site Plan and Underground
Parking Plan (original and update)
Environmental Noise Assessment
Functional Servicing Report & Drawings
Geotechnical Investigation
Mass Views
Parking Study and TDM Plan
Pedestrian Wind Assessment
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (both parcels)
Planning Justification Report (original and addendum)
Record of Site Condition & Letter of Acknowledge (both parcels)
Record of Site Condition (both parcels)
Salt Management Plan
Shadow Study
Sustainable Development Initiatives
Tree Management Plan
Urban Design Report (original and update)
Department and Agency Comments:
A copy of all comments received from the commenting agencies and City departments are attached
with the proposed Zoning By-law
Amendment applications. Additional considerations or concerns will be addressed through the site
plan approval process.
Community Input and Staff Responses:
A Comprehensive Engagement Report, which includes a question-and-answer summary from the
two Neighbourhood Information Meetings and a summary of the ten small group meeting comments
A copy is attached to this report as Ap
Responses are provided below for comments that have new or additional information since the
preparation of the Comprehensive Engagement Report dated April 12, 20
contains comments from the community on these applications.
Affordable Housing
There was concern that the proposed development does not include affordable housing units. The
Applicant has advised in writing that they intend to make a $250,000 donation to Menno Homes to
(Appendix G).
Building Height & Shadow Impacts & Privacy
Some residents provided comments that the building should be lower in height, with suggested
heights ranging between 2 and 8 storeys.
storeys as-of-right. Site Specific Provision (188) will implement Official Plan Policy 15.D.4.23, among
others, which permits the City to consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50
percent of the permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed
use building containing residential units. Planning Staff are satisfied that Site Specific Provision (188)
will permit a built form that features a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the
streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands. Planning staff are satisfied that the revised
proposal meets the intent of Policy 15.D.4.23 for reasons outlined above in this report.
Loss of Character of Belmont Village
Some residents were concerned that a mid-rise or high-rise building would be out of character for
Upper Belmont Village and some respondents requested that Upper Belmont Village should be
preserved in its current form and preserved as a Heritage Conservation District.
Belmont Village is not included in the current boundaries of the Westmount Neighbourhood Cultural
Heritage Landscape (CHL). The Westmount Neighbourhood is identified as a significant CHL in the
2014 CHL Study, prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. and approved by Council in 2015.
The CHL Study serves to establish an inventory of CHLs, and the study identified 55 CHLs across
the City. The CHL inventory does not have formal status under the Ontario Heritage Act, and the
Westmount Neighbourhood CHL is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The following
map shows the boundaries of the Westmount Neighbourhood CHL, as identified in the 2014 CHL
Study.
Intensification areas like Belmont Village are planned to provide for a range of retail and commercial
uses and intensification opportunities and are planned to change over time. Concentrating mid-rise
and high-rise developments within intensification areas brings a variety and mix of housing types to
existing communities. Community areas, like the lands shown within the Westmount Neighbourhood
CHL are not planned to accommodate significant growth and change.
Staff note that the existing building on site was formerly used as a five bay automotive service centre
and tire store, shown below.
660 Belmont Avenue West (Source: Google Street View dated October 2020)
The current built form is not pedestrian oriented and features a large surface parking lot between
the front building façade and the sidewalk. Urban Corridors are planned to evolve over time as new
automobile-oriented uses are no longer permitted. As redevelopment occurs within any Urban
Corridor, the built form is planned to transition to a pedestrian and transit supportive design, which
includes bringing primary facades closer to the street, locating parking behind buildings, and having
active uses at grade adjacent to the sidewalk.
Further, the base of the building has been proposed to betwo storeys so that the building will provide
a similar feel to the low-rise buildings that currently exist in Upper Belmont Village. Belmont Avenue
West is a pedestrian-oriented street design with road improvements that support pedestrian activity.
Therefore, it is important to consider the mass of the building from the pedestrian perspective at the
base of the building.
Existing Traffic and On-Street Parking in the Community
Planning staff received comments about vehicles travelling through the neighbourhood and an
increase in traffic and parking demands during events such as Bestival. Some respondents also
noted that further traffic studies should have been completed in 2012 and when the on-street cycling
lanes were introduced along Belmont Avenue West.
Transportation staff have advised that Regional standards require that a development must generate
at least 100 new trips in either the AM or PM peak for the formal requirement of a Transportation
Impact Study. Generally, a site that generates less than 100 vehicle trips in the peak hour has limited
impact on the surrounding street network.
When reviewing transportation impacts, it is important to note that height alone doe
traffic, but rather the intended uses of the site. In this case, traffic studies were collected by a third
party at a nearby comparable condo site to better determine anticipated peak hour traffic volume
that could be expected at 660 Belmont Avenue. Through that study, it was determined that that site
generated 0.21 and 0.27 vehicle trips per unit during the AM and PM peak hours respectively. These
rates were then applied to the proposed site (163 units at the time of comparison) and it was
determined that 34 and 44 vehicle trips can be expected in the AM and PM peak hours respectively.
The next step in assessing peak traffic volume is to understand the current use. The existing site
contained a tire store that would generate traffic (if still in operation of course) which needs to be
considered as well. A typical 5-bay Tire Store (such as Dettmer Tire which was formerly located at
this site) would be expected to generate 11 vehicle trips in the AM and 18 trips in the PM. These
totals can be subtracted from the anticipated volume to give the total new traffic volumes anticipated;
23 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 26 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour (roughly one new
vehicle trip every 2 to 2 and a half minutes). This then gets broken down further by entering/exiting
traffic and direction. Assuming even distribution, this site results in one new vehicle trip every 4-5
minutes in the peak hour at the intersection of Belmont and Glasgow. This type of negligible volume
increase is anticipated to have minimal if any noticeable impact on the surrounding street network.
All of the above does not begin to take into consideration the improvements to transit and active
transportation infrastructure that has also resulted in changing traffic patterns and would also
generally be applied in a transportation impact study. Nor does it take into account any traffic signal
improvements that were implemented as a result of the changes to Belmont Avenue when the bicycle
lanes were added in the fall of 2019.
Transportation staff did not identify the need for a traffic study in 2012, but rather that the proposed
intensification of the entire corridor presents potential traffic-related compatibility issues to develop
in the surrounding residential neighbourhoods related to parking and traffic infiltration. At that time,
Transportation staff were referring to the intensification of the entire Belmont Avenue corridor. 660
Belmont Ave is one specific element within the entire corridor. alysis of this particular
site, it is important to take into account existing approved use and compare with what is proposed. In
going through that transportation analysis exercise, Transportation staff determined that the
proposed site would not generate
full-scale transportation impact study. In order to assess potential parking infiltration concerns,
parking studies were conducted.
Consistent withthe implementation of the Mixed Use Corridor zoning in 2012, one of the objectives
of the implementing the land use changes was to achieve a built form that supports transit and active
transportation. This means a change in the type of uses (away from auto-oriented uses that generate
high volumes of traffic, such as an automotive repair garage) to uses that are more conducive to
pedestrians and transit users. There have been improvements in both transit and active
transportation that were not fully contemplated in 2012 and therefore it is even more probable that
trips generated within the corridor will be shorter trips and vehicle use will be that much more limited.
Off-Street Parking
Residents expressed concern about the proposed parking reduction requested with this application
given the existing parking demand and narrow surrounding residential streets. Respondents were
concerned about having ample street parking for day-to-day operation of their community. Some
respondents were concerned about the two-car bay parking stalls in the underground parking levels.
As part of the revised development concept, the total number of residential units has decreased and
an on-site parking reduction is no longer being requested. Planning staff are not recommending any
parking reductions with this application at this time. The subject lands are zoned in Zoning By-law
2019-051, which means that secured and visitor bicycle parking, shared commercial and visitor
parking, and electric vehicle parking rates will apply to any future development. Secondly, the revised
development concept has removed the two-car bay garage on the lower parking levels.
Building Setbacks and Setbacks
Urban Design Guidelines require a base and a stepback of the tower above. After providing some
local examples of where tall buildings were built without a base and stepback, Planning staff did
receive some comments of concerns about the other examples.
Site Specific Provision (188) will allow for a reduced tower stepback of 2.7 metres where 3.0 metres
is required by -law. The MIX-2 zone and the Design for Tall Building Guidelines
require a base and tower stepback for a building. A 2.7 metre stepback will ensure that the built form
will be articulated that will include both a base and tower component.
Sale of Belmont Lane East Notice
Comments were received that the potential sale of Belmont Lane East had not been publicly
advertised and that sufficient consultation has not occurred on the potential sale of the lane.
The notice of the potential sale of Belmont lane East is in accordance with Section 177.3.3 and
177.6.2 of Chapter 177 Sale Real Property
While the initial circulation letter and the first Neighbourhood Information Meeting did not discuss the
lane purchase request, there was quite a bit of discussion on process at the second Neighbourhood
Information Meeting and in the follow up small group meetings and the site walk.
Additional information on the lane purchase requested was also included in the Comprehensive
Engagement Report (attached as Appendix
second Neighbourhood Information Meeting to include the lane purchase request.
The notice of the February 7, 2022 Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting will also
include notice of the potential sale of Belmont Lane East.
Sale of Belmont Lane East Function
Planning staff received comments that the lane should be maintained by the City to ensure thatthere
is access to the rear of the building and the parking areas. Part B of the Urban Design Manual (Mixed
Use Corridor Brief) notes that the existing laneway access be maintained and that parking be located
behind buildings. Underground parking for high-rise forms & structured parking for mid-rise forms is
encouraged.
Only the lane is City-owned and the existing and proposed parking areas are privately owned
(although often used by the general public). The City is responsible for the maintenance of the
laneway to the minimum legislated standards and should the proposed redevelopment at 660
Belmont Avenue West proceed without the closure and sale of the laneway, rear access to the
development would be provided via an easement over a public laneway.
Planning staff agree that the function of the laneway is important to ensure a pedestrian-first
streetscape along Belmont Avenue West and that all parking and back-of-house operations of 660
Belmont Avenue West and 678-692 Belmont Avenue West should be from the rear lane. As there is
only one landowner for this block (two companies owned by the Zehr Group), the lane could be in
private ownership and still continue to function and operate in a similar manner to today, without the
liability to the City nor maintenance requirements. The sale of the lane is being recommended
because if the City decides not to sell the laneway to the adjacent property owner as there would
likely never be another opportunity to sell or dispose of this laneway out side of the current request.
This publicly-owned and maintained laneway would benefit only one private landowner and require
regular City maintenance and costs in perpetuity and the function of the lane could continue in private
ownership.
The increased development potential the land consolidated would provide to both properties would
be reflected in the final purchase price and subject to Council approval as outlined in the
recommendation above.
The revised proposal also includes a publicly accessible pedestrian mews, a mid-block connection
through the site from Belmont Avenue West to the Iron Horse Trail that is a more pedestrian oriented
connection as compared to walking down a travelled lane.
Sale of Belmont Lane East Emergency Access
Planning staff received comments about how emergency access would be provided to 660 Belmont
Avenue West and 678-692 Belmont Avenue West if the lane was not sold and a narrower private
lane was developed instead.
Emergency access can be provided to both 660 Belmont Avenue West and 678-692 Belmont
Officer reviews all site plan drawings in accordance with the Ontari
Emergency Services Policy at the site planning process. For larger buildings, sprinklers are often
used as firefighting occurs largely from within the building. Through the site plan process, the
Applicant will have to identify the location of the Siamese connection (fire department pumper
connection). The proximity of that connection to the street is carefully reviewed so that fire trucks
can be within the required distance (those connections are often facing the public street like Belmont
Avenue West). If this criteria can be met from the street, the rear lane does not need to meet the
Fire Access Route standards.
Belmont Village District Energy
Planning staff received a proposal for Belmont Village to be a location for a future district energy
system.
In September 2020 Council directed staff to develop a district energy business case for downtown
as outlined in report DSD-20-151. Staff have been advancing work on this matter since that time.
Belmont Avenue West is not currently identified as a location for further study for district energy at
this time.
Closure of Belmont Avenue West and Iron Horse Trail During Construction
Some residents were concerned about the closure of Belmont Avenue West and/or the Iron Horse
Trail during construction. The Applicant has advised that road and trail closures were not anticipated,
and that construction staging could occur on site. The City will require a parking and construction
staging plan as a condition of site plan approval.
Sustainable Development Techniques and Methods
Planning staff, as well as some respondents, identified that need that the development proposal be
developed using sustainable construction techniques and methods. The Official Plan provides
sustainable development direction for new developments, including a broad range of practices,
including: developing communities and buildings that are energy and water efficient; reducing
greenhouse gas emissions; using environmentally friendly building materials; efficiently managing
stormwater; reducing and/or managing solid waste; and, creating complete, healthy, walkable,
transit-supportive, cycling and pedestrian-friendly communities are often associated with sustainable
development. The proposal is a compact and efficient development that redevelops an existing
property. Sustainable development techniques and construction methods will be further explored at
the site planning stage.
Planning Conclusions:
Community input over the last 17 months has been considered and resulted in changes to the
proposal. The development proposal evolved with input from community members, City staff, and
commenting agencies since the fall of 2020.
Provincial, Regional, and City planning policy provide guidance that must be considered when
evaluating changes in land use permissions. Planning staff are of the opinion that a high-rise multiple
dwelling building is appropriate for this location and will not have adverse impacts on the community.
This is an identified intensification site within the community that can accommodate additional
residential units and ground floor commercial uses and contribute to a complete community.
Planning Staff are satisfied that Site Specific Provision (188) will permit a built form that features a
pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the streetscape and compatibility with adjacent
lands. Planning staff are satisfied that the revised proposal meets the intent of Policy 15.D.4.23 for
the reasons outlined above in the Official Plan Analysis section.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment is in the public
interest and strives to balance various interests; the multi-level legislative planning framework, the
new housing within an established community. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed
development will offer a different housing type and provide more residential units within an
established neighbourhood. While the proposed dwellings are in a built form that is different from
other existing buildings, high-rise residential in a mixed-usebuilding is a compatible use for the
planned function of Belmont Village.
Based on this analysis, Planning staff is recommending approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the strategic vision through
the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications were
circulated for comment to internal departments, external agencies, and all property owners within
120 metres of the subject lands on August 7, 2020. A list of interested residents was continually
updated throughout the application process. Written responses from property owners and interested
da in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Two large billboard
notice signs were posted on the property facing Belmont Avenue West as well as the Iron Horse
Trail. A letter advising of the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (Statutory Public
Meeting) was sent to everyone who participated in the process and all property owners within 120
metres of the subject lands. A copy of the notice was also emailed to all community members that
provided an email address through the application process, as well as the Westmount and Cherry
Park Neighbourhood Associations.
CONSULT A virtual Neighbourhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on December 17, 2020.
A second virtual NIM was held on Thursday, February 25, 2021. The Zoom registration reports
recorded 97 different log-ons for the first meeting and 154 for the second meeting. Planning Staff
held ten small group sessions the week of March 15, 2021. These meetings provided an opportunity
for community members to share their perspectives, have a chance to speak, and ask questions. In
total, 88 people registered and over 90 people attended one of the small group meetings. Planning
staff also attended a site walk on March 23, 2021. The site walk was led and organized by community
members known as the Friends of Belmont Village, and Planning staff attended. The site walk was
an opportunity for community members to identify their concerns, discuss their comments in the field,
and to ask questions of Planning staff.
Notice of the public meeting will appear in The Record on January 14, 2022 (a copy of the Notice
may be found in Appendix F).
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Municipal Act, 2001
Planning Act
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020
Regional Official Plan
City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014
City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 177 Sale Real Property
Kitchener Growth Management Strategy
Zoning By-law 2019-051
City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual
CSD-12-012 - Belmont Avenue West Mixed Use Corridor Zoning By-law
Amendment
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A - Proposed Zoning By-law & Map No. 1
Appendix B - Comprehensive Engagement Report
Appendix C - Final Development Concept
Appendix D - Department/Agency Comments
Appendix E - Community Input
Appendix F Newspaper Notice
Appendix G Affordable Housing Letter
PROPOSED BY LAW
______ 2022
BY-LAW NUMBER ___
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as amended,
known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener
660 Belmont LP, 660 Belmont GP Inc. and City of Kitchener
- 660 Belmont Avenue West and part of Belmont Lane East)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend 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. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 40 -law Number 2019-051 is
hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and
illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from MIX-
2: Mixed Use Two with Site Specific Provisions (128), (142), and (49) to MIX-2: Mixed
Use Two with Site Specific Provisions (128), (142), (49) and (188).
2. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 40 -law Number 2019-051 is
hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on
Map No. 1 attached hereto.
3. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Site Specific Provision
(188) thereto as follows:
(188). Notwithstanding Section 8.3 of this By-law, within the lands zoned MIX-2:
Mixed Use Two as shown on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 40 of Appendix
and shown as being affected by this subsection, the following special
regulations shall apply:
i) the maximum building height shall be 39.1 metres;
ii) the maximum number of storeys shall be 11 storeys;
iii) the number of storeys in the base of a mid-rise building or tall
building shall be 2 storeys; and,
iv) the minimum street line stepback for mid-rise buildings and tall
buildings shall be 2.7 metres.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this
day of ,2022
________________________
Mayor
________________________
Clerk
R-7I-3
R-6
SCHEDULE 39
R-5
I-2 102U
R-5 129U
SCHEDULE 40
R-5
129U
!
R-5
´
SUBJECT AREA(S)
MIX-2
(142),
(49)
R-9 133U
R-5
MIX-2 (128)
R-5
R-5
R-5
(143), (139)
AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 2019-051
129U
AREA 1
FROM MIXED USE TWO ZONE (MIX-2)
R-5
MIX-2 (128)
WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
OSR-2
(144), (139)
(49), (128) AND (142))
MIX-2
R-5 129U
(128)
R-5
TO MIXED USE TWO ZONE (MIX-2)
(142), (49)
WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
MIX-2
(49), (128), (142) AND (188)
(128),
(139)
R-5
R-5
ZONE GRID REFERENCE
R-5
SCHEDULE NO. 40
MIX-2 (128)
(142), (139)
OF APPENDIX 'A'
KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1
OSR-2
AND 2019-051
AREA 1
MIX-2 (128),
R-5
(145), (139)
R-3
BY-LAW 85-1
MU-2
I-2 COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONAL
MIX-2 (128)424R,
(144), (139)
I-3 MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL ZONE
MIX-2 (128)
573R
(146), (139)
M-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE
R-3 RESIDENTIAL THREE
MIX-2
MIX-2 (128)
(49)
R-4 RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE
(147), (139)
MIX-2
MIX-2
M-2 21U
(148)R-5 RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE
(145)
(49)
R-6 RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
MIX-2
R-7 RESIDENTIAL SEVEN ZONE
(148),
MIX-2
MIX-2
(144),R-9 RESIDENTIAL NINE ZONE
(14H)
(139)
(49)
R-4BY-LAW 2019-051
MIX-2 MIXED USE TWO
OSR-2 OPEN SPACE: GREENWAYS
MIX-2
MIX-2
(144),
(149),
ZONE LIMITS
(49)
(49)
050100
MAP NO. 1
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA20/012/B/JVW
METRES
660 BELMONT GP INC.; 660 BELMONT LP;
SCALE 1:4,000
CITY OF KITCHENER
FILE:
City of Kitchener ZBA20012BJVW_MAP1
660 BELMONT AVE W & PT OF BELMONT
.mxd
DATE: JANUARY 12, 2022
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING
LANE E
Comprehensive Engagement Report
660 Belmont Avenue West
Official Plan Amendment 20/004/B/JVW
Zoning By-law Amendment 20/012/B/JVW
April 12, 2021
2
Application Background
-law to permit
a new mixed-use development. The proposed 13 storey (49 metres in height) mixed-use
building is proposed to include:
163 residential units (including 115 one bedroom units and 48 two-bedroom units), and
1090 square metres of ground floor commercial space.
The Official Plan Amendment application requests to increase the maximum height to 13
storeys and 49 metres in height.
Currently, the Official Plan permits a maximum building height of 8 storeys or 25 metres.
The Zoning By-law Amendment application requests to increase the maximum height to 13
storeys and 49 metres and to reduce the residential parking requirement from 147 spaces (0.9
spaces per dwelling unit) to 130 spaces (0.8 spaces per dwelling unit).
No reductions are being sought for commercial parking requirements. The multi-unit
commercial parking rate is 1 space per 35 square metres.
The current zoning is MIX-2: Mixed Use Two which permits a maximum height of 25 metres
and 8 storeys.
The Zoning By-law allows commercial and residential parking to be shared for mixed-use
buildings.
Engagement Opportunities
Neighbourhood Information Meetings
A virtual neighbourhood information meeting (NIM) was held on December 17, 2020. A second
virtual NIM was held on Thursday, February 25, 2021. These two large scale meetings were an
effective way to share information, but they were supplemented with opportunities for two way
dialogue between City staff and community members.
The Zoom report shows 97 different log-ons for the first meeting and 154 for the second
meeting.
Staff received specific questions during the two meetings through the Q&A and Chat features in
Zoom. City Staff and the Applicant have provided responses to the questions, which are
attached as Appendix A to this report. Questions were provided to the appropriate City of
Kitchener staff as well as the Applicant to respond as applicable.
Small Group Meetings
Planning Staff held ten small group sessions the week of March 15, 2021. These meetings were
an opportunity for community members to share their perspectives, have a chance to speak,
and ask questions.
In total, 88 people registered and over 90 people attended one of the small group meetings. A
summary of the discussions, as well as additional comments submitted with the RSVP email, is
attached as Appendix B to this report. These notes are not a verbatim record of the meetings
and are a general summary of the discussions, including comments, questions, and answers.
3
Site Walk
Planning staff attended a socially distanced site walk on March 23, 2021 as part of the
engagement sessions. All attendees wore masks and all public health and City of Kitchener
COVID-19 protocols were met. The site walk was led and organized by community members,
and Planning staff attended as requested. The site walk was an opportunity for community
members to identify their concerns, discuss their comments in the field, and to ask questions of
Planning staff. No formal minutes were taken, however the discussion on the site walk is largely
captured in Appendixes A and B.
Email and Telephone Enquires
Planning staff also provided additional information, and answered questions, by responding to
email and telephone enquiries.
Next Steps - City of Kitchener Commitments
summary within 3 weeks of the last engagement event (site walk on March 23, 2021).
Any updated information or revised development concepts or additional materials will be posted
www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications. An email will be sent to the
distribution list when substantial website updates occur.
City of Kitchener staff will thoughtfully consider all written comments, questions, and feedback
outlined in this report, as well as all comments received to date.
All interested community members that participated in any aspect of these applications who
provided an email and/or mailing address, all property owners within 120 metres, and applicable
Neighbourhood Associations will be provided a written notice of the statutory public meeting
when these applications will be considered by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee.
Attachments
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table - Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
4
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Neighbourhood Information Meetings
December 17, 2020 & February 5, 2021
ZOOM Chat and Q&A Responses
____________________________________________________________________________
These questions were provided to the appropriate City of Kitchener staff as well as the Applicant
to respond as applicable.
Q: How much of the project is affordable housing?
Applicant: The proposed building does not include any units that would meet a policy
definition or threshold of "affordable".
Q: I view Belmont village as an important historical part of the city. This building is totally out of
proportion with the scale of the rest of the area. It seems to be out of harmony with the low rise
nature of the village. Do you have a relief view of the proposed building with all the other buildings
in the village? This looks like the end of our village.
Applicant: Perspective views of the originally submitted building proposal are contained in
the Urban Design Report submitted for the applications.
Q: Considering the need for underground parking on this site, there is going to be a need for major
excavation and substantial pile driving to enable this. How will this project address the issue of
damage that this will cause to homes in the surrounding neighbourhood have plaster walls?
Applicant: Zehr Group has constructed many projects in tight urban environments.
Preconstruction inspections on the surroundings properties will be completed prior to
construction starting. Shoring installation will be completed via vertical drill rigs vs. pile
driving equipment.
City of Kitchener: Damage claims are a civil matter between the complainant and the
builder. It is recommended that you take photographs of the existing condition of your
property if you think you may experience damage during construction.
Q: What changes would have to be made to the annual Bestival as a result of this project, and
what new objections might be raised to the Bestival?
Applicant: In 2021 Zehr Group will be donating the property to whomever wants its
(including the Bestival) for festival/place making activities. In the future, the at grade
landscaping is being design to work with festivals (such as Bestival), etc.
Q: Thank you for showing us how you arrived at a 13-storey design. If your proposal is ultimately
denied, will you still proceed with an 8-storey building? If so, do you currently have an 8-storey
design, and can you please share it so we can also consider this alternative?
Applicant: An 8-storey building design has not been prepared.
Q: At, say, 10 feet per storey, 13 stories and 130 feet is lower than the height permission which
is being sought. How tall are the various stories of the proposed building?
Applicant: The submitted building plans include the following heights for the different
components: 5.4 metres for the ground floor, 3.2 to 3.6 metres for floors 2 through 10, 4.0
and 4.2 metres for floors 11 and 12, and 4.0 metres for the mechanical penthouse floor
(floor 13).
Q: - the only trade-off is
profits? Applicant: The project is not viable as an 8-storey building.
5
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: This project seems to be driven by the concept of maximizing the building square footage,
forcing the proponent to go higher when increasing set backs. Would the project remain financially
viable with a shorter building with the same building footprint as the 13 story concept?
Applicant: The project is not viable as an 8-storey building.
Q: Can a representative of the proponent speak to the financial viability of this project at a smaller
scale.
Applicant: The proposed development has been designed since early concepts to achieve
a balance between high quality urban design and project profitably. The project as it is
currently proposed has been designed to achieve the financing requirements set forth by
financial institutions.
Q: 49 meters (as I recall the requested height - sorry, going by memory as your slide is gone) is
160 feet or "16" standard stories. This relates to my prior question.
esired by the City of
Kitchener Tall Building Guidelines, any consideration of taller ceiling heights of any of the
floors throughout the building, or the fact the mechanical penthouse has to be included in
instance (not required typically).
City of Kitche
is to provide flexibility for future commercial uses.
Q: The existing 8 story 24m / 12 story 36m is 3m per story. Proposal is for 13 stories 49m which
is closer to 4m per story. Why so high?
floorplates is very simple: quality of life. The increased floor heights provide for higher
ceilings in all units; even the smallest ones in the building, which brings more natural
daylight into the suites. This brings real physiological and psychological benefits to the
residents. We are also finding in our work in Kitchener that the current Zoning allocation
of 3m per residential floor is insufficient to adequately accommodate current structural
and HVAC systems ductwork sizing, which rely on pulling in and exhausting more natural
air to and from the suites than older systems. We also use the additional height to bolster
acoustic ratings in our floor assembles to better mitigate against sound transfer between
units. The additional height at the ground floor is to provide high ceiling spaces in all
commercial units and to encourage larger users who require additional height for their
businesses.
Q: Increased height per story is an obvious benefit for residents but how is this balanced for the
rest of the community. City will need to address this.
Applicant: From a city planning perspective, the Official Plan, Kitchener's long-term
planning policy document that directs zoning, contemplates 12 storeys buildings for the
building subject to satisfying criteria (noting the proposed 13th storey is not a full storey in
the sense it is much smaller in footprint than the storey below and there are no residential
units on the floor). Intensification along corridors and close to transit are core directives at
the Provincial, Regional and City planning levels.
Q: The landscape pictures in the film only showed people sitting and walking around. Where was
the parking lot?
Applicant: The extent of the surface parking area is shown on the development plans.
6
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Does the developer own more of Belmont? Is this the start of a line of high rise units?
Approving this 13 storey proposal would be precedent setting - would it not?
Applicant: The applicant owns the abutting property to the north of the property subject to
the proposed applications.
Q: I understand that Zehr Group also owns the adjacent (yellow) property. What are their long
term plans for that property and, assuming this development proceeds, will we see an application
for another 8 to 12 story building on that property?
Applicant: There are no plans at this time for the abutting property: it is an operating mixed
office building.
Q: Are all the units considered luxury units?
Applicant: The proposed building provides for a range of unit types, sizes and amenities,
so it will not be exclusive. Some upper floor units might be considered "premium" in terms
of offerings, but this a small proportion of the total unit count. Many of the units are more
typical one-bedroom and two-bedroom units that are more attainable, recognizing the
overall is meant to be a high quality building.
Q: Are the units sold as condos or are they rental units?
Applicant: The proposed building will be a condominium ownership.
Q: One bedroom units tend to attract single people and thus a higher ratio of cars to floor space.
Were larger units considered?
Applicant: The proposed building plans do include a mix of unit types including larger two-
bedroom units. Based on experience and evidence, one-bedroom units cater to those
residents seeking a unit but not a parking space.
two bedrooms? Projected number for this size? Would the minimum number of cars to
accommodate for 13. I assume the range of stories would be 8 to 13. What would be the number
of apartments for 8,9,10,11, and 12.
Applicant: The submitted building plans for the applications contain 163 dwelling units with
a general 70/30 split between one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. These floor plans
continue to evolve though. Minimum parking requirements are applied per unit, so there
is no difference between one- and two-bedroom units from a zoning perspective. There
are no plans other than the proposed 13-storey building.
Q: WHO will own the units?
Applicant: The proposed building will be a condominium ownership.
Q: Green space in this area is still quite small in proportion to other Kitchener neighborhoods.
While the community spaces demonstrated in the renderings look to be quite positive for the
Village, what about green spaces? City of Waterloo actually purchased homes on Williams street
in Uptown west in order to secure more green areas for the densifying neighborhood. Will City of
Kitchener take a similar action? Could part of the site adjacent to the Iron horse be dedicated
green space?
City of Kitchener: The city recognizes a gap in public park space surrounding this
dedication as a cash-in-lieu contribution to enable acquisition of other meaningful,
strategic properties. The city is currently updating its Park Strategic Plan in 2021 through
7
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
2022, through which specific acquisition strategies will be proposed and vetted through
both public consultation and City Council.
Q: Trio On Belmont has issue with residences using iron horse trail as smoking area - results in
lot of litter and poor environment, what is City's policy on this given large population that will be
adjacent to the trail with this development.
t trails with a mix of
regular commuters and other users traversing it on a daily basis. It is not intended to
become an area of congregation that may impede flow of pedestrians and cyclists and the
enjoyment of this space for residents. If this is an ongoing issue, Bylaw should be notified
and Trio On Belmont / property management companies should notify residents of
Regional smoking regulations. (Smoke-Free Ontario Act (SFOA) 2017). If further
regulatory signage along the Iron Horse Trail is required to help rectify the issue, the City
may look at installing these at appropriate locations.
Q: How many applications for past high-rise projects that have reached this stage have been
rejected?
City of Kitchener: Public engagement is a fundamental part of the Planning process and
almost every development application in Kitchener has been influenced by comments
received through the process. Planning staff endeavor to find a balance of interests when
making their recommendations to Council. Planning staff work to understand how a
development application may change a community, and work with residents to manage
change and to implement solutions to their concerns in the most appropriate way.
Q: How do we get the official plan changed to protect the destruction of Belmont Village?
City of Kitchener:
is required to update it every 5-10 years to implement updated Provincial and Regional
direction. The next Official Plan review process is unlikely to start until 2023. For this
application, you will be informed of all future meetings regarding these applications. These
applications will be considered at a future public meeting held by the Planning and
Strategic Initiatives Committee and Kitchener City Council. You may attend as a
delegation to each of these meetings. You will be informed when they are scheduled by
mail or email.
Q: What is it going to bring to our area for those of us already here? More traffic (people and cars)
larger buildings that encroach on our space? Can you give me anything positive?
City of Kitchener: Compact complete communities that utilize existing infrastructure in
urban areas that are transit supportive help to meet the City's goals and requirements for
directing and managing growth.
Applicant: On a broad city-planning and city-building exercise, the benefit to the
community and city in general include an enhanced street activity with commercial, the
addition of 300 residents on the doorstep of Belmont businesses, contribution to a better
connection and interface with the Iron Horse Trail, and support for the GRT transit service
including the ION.
8
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Have you looked at other similar villages like this in other cities to see what they have done?
I know of one to recommend for you to look at .
Applicant: Ground floor commercial activities, spaces, and unit design have been
specific looked at to what make such environments successful for the desired
businesses and activities.
Q: Can the City please explain why one of their communications stated that only
homeowners/residents within 120m of the proposed building were notified about this project?
Residents of this neighbourhood who walk to and support the lovely businesses on Belmont come
from farther than 120m.
City of Kitchener: The Planning Act requires that notice be provided to properties located
within 120 metres of a development application and the City has followed this practice for
a review of opportunities to improve our public engagement practices, the City is exploring
opportunities to expand the circulation radius for notice of development applications in
order to provide more broad notice of future development proposals.
Q: Can the City circulate notes of this meeting with questions to residents within a reasonable
and appropriate area surrounding Belmont Village.
City of Kitchener: The Planning Act requires that notice be provided to properties located
within 120 metres of a development application and the City has followed this practice for
nt Services Review which included
a review of opportunities to improve our public engagement practices, the City is exploring
opportunities to expand the circulation radius for notice of development applications in
order to provide more broad notice of future development proposals. A large
neighbourhood notice sign was installed on site for passers-by to be made aware of the
applications and there will be a newspaper notice when the statutory public meeting is
scheduled. The date of the meeting will also be posted on the sign. The City provides
current information on the Planning Application Consultation webpage. Councillor
Johnston also shares updates on her social media and in publications (Kitchener Citizen
column, etc). Planning staff also provide information to interested media representatives
and have conducted interviews for these applications.
Q: What does compatibility mean to you?
nes compatibility as land uses and building
forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony within an area
without causing unacceptable adverse effects, adverse environmental impacts or adverse
Adverse impacts may include but will not be limited to: shadows over private amenity areas
or on building façades for an unacceptable duration, issues of privacy, overlook conditions,
negative microclimatic impacts, light pollution (such as light trespass or glare), odour,
vibration, noise pollution urban heat island effects, visual clutter or obstruction of views
and/or vistas.
Adverse Effects, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act, means one or more of:
a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it;
b) injury or damage to property or plant or animal life; c) harm or material discomfort to
any person; d) an adverse effect on the health of any person; e) impairment of the safety
of any person; f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use; g) loss
of enjoyment of normal use of property; and, h) interference with normal conduct of
business.
9
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Adverse Environmental Impacts are changes likely to arise directly or indirectly from
development, redevelopment or site alteration within or lands adjacent to a Natural
Heritage System feature that result in widespread, long-term, or irreversible degradation
of the significant features or impairment of the natural functions of the designated area.
The City requires studies and plans to demonstrate impacts of a development and
By-law, and Urban Design Manual.
Applicant: The City of Kitchener Official Plan provides an objective definition
and building forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony
within an area without causing unacceptable adverse effects, adverse environmental
impacts or adverse impacts. Compatibility or compatible should not be narrowly
Q: How can 13 storeys possibly be considered compatible with adjacent areas?
Applicant: Tall buildings can "co-exist" with surrounding low-rise areas; they currently do
in the area to the east and south near the Belmont Avenue corridor. "Tests" of
compatibility include massing models, wind studies, shadow studies, and application of
design guidelines, all of which were submitted as part of the applications.
Q: Most of the height of the building seems to have arisen as a result of the 4 times coverage of
the space. Who decided that that was necessary? Why can't you make a shorter building with the
friendly features that might have a lower coverage number?
City of Kitchener: The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is a measure used to regulate building
mass based on a lot area. A FSR of 4 means that a building can have 4 times the lot area
(in building floor area) above ground. The City of Kitchener uses FSR as a tool to regulate
building mass, in addition to zoning regulations (such as setbacks and height) and Urban
Design policies and guidelines. The smaller the floor of each building, the more floors
could be added within the FSR limit of 4.0. For example, if a building only covered half of
a lot, and at the FSR allowed is 4.0, it could be 8 storeys in height. FSR is only one
measure of building size, which is why other regulations, such a building height, are used
in the zoning. The City regulates FSR in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and allows
for a higher FSR for properties that are identified for growth and in locations that could
accommodate additional density that are within a reasonable distance to the LRT, to
support the commercial businesses in communities like the ones in Belmont Village, and
neighbourhoods.
Q: The basis for the target square footage started with an assumption of 4 x coverage of the lot.
As a starting assumption this doesn't seem reasonable. Shouldn't minimum setbacks be taken
into account first before the building massing started?
City of Kitchener: The overall size of a building, and how much total floor area may be
provided on a site, is regulated through zoning regulations (floor space ratio, setbacks,
setbacks, height) as well as Urban Design Guidelines (design changes to minimize
impacts). The maximum overall floor space ratio is a measure used to regulate the total
building floor area based on lot size.
Q: Again, why does it have to be 4 times coverage?
City of Kitchener: The maximum permitted floor space ratio in the City's Zoning By-law is
4.0.
:
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Where does "Four times coverage" come from? Is it a developer's standard, or a City standard?
City of Kitchener: The maximum permitted floor space ratio in the City's Zoning By-law is
4.0.
Q: The scale of the proposed development is alarmingly disproportionate to the rest of Belmont
Village. The impact will profoundly affect our neighbourhood and future development in the
own definition, this development is considered a tall building.
The Current bylaw allows for an 8 storey building, four to eight times higher than current buildings
on the street. How do you justify building a structure any higher than 8 storeys?
City of Kitchener: Official Plan policy 15.D.4.23 allows the City to consider increases to
the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a
development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units.
It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the
streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable
policies within this Plan are satisfied. A Zoning By-law Amendment application is still
required to increase the building height. However, despite the height of the buildings on
the street today, since 2012 the zoning has permitted buildings up to 8 storeys and 25
metres in height.
anyone to accept change, and Belmont Village c
which continues to have significant development. I think the concern is really the number of
stories. 12 is too high, given its location (proximity to street and trail) and the character of the rest
of the village. Could the number of stories be brought down to 10 or less and still make sense for
the developer?
Applicant: The Official Plan policy contemplates an increased building height of the greater
of 12 storeys or 37.5 metres for this side of Belmont Avenue including the property, subject
to satisfying the applicable criteria. The project is not viable at 10 or less storeys.
Q: Westmount/Belmont is a family community, how do 1 and 2 bedroom units fit into this area?
My suspicion is the floor space of each unit will be suited to singles. Why are we not building
units that might suit perhaps families or retirees/older residents from Westmount who want to stay
in the area but not live in a tiny unit? Can you not please be creative, build a luxury development
- both inside and out - not just another box.
City of Kitchener: Policy 4.C.1.12 of the Official Plan states that the City favours a land
use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across
the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. Smaller condominium units would be a
different form of housing than is found throughout the adjacent low rise residential
community.
Q: Does the 4.0 FSR depend on the Belmont Lane East being purchased by the applicant?
City of Kitchener: No, the current zoning permits a maximum FSR of 4.0 whether the lands
are consolidated or not. If the lane is sold to the Developer, the lane lands and the property
to the east of lane are consolidated and that increases the overall lot area, which would
increase the total building area (it would be four times the consolidated lot area). The
development concept includes all lands (including the lane) in the FSR calculation.
Q: Why can't the parking be underground instead of above ground?
City of Kitchener: Underground parking is proposed. The plans received show residential
parking underground and shared commercial/residential visitor parking at the rear of the
building.
21
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Applicant: Most of the parking (over 80%) is contained in a two-level underground parking
garage. The remainder is on the surface for ease of access for shoppers and visitors.
Q: Belmont Village should have a full study done first to approve or reject any development of this
type.
City of Kitchener: The City has no current plans to complete a Secondary Plan for this
area.
Q: Has there been an area study of the whole of Belmont Village?
City of Kitchener: The mixed-use corridor land use designation was put in place in the
previous Official Plan and brought forward in the 2014 Official Plan which implemented a
new Urban Structure which confirmed intensification areas across the City. Belmont
lanning intent for Belmont Village? Is
City of Kitchener: The City has a planned Urban Structure meaning that every property
has policies and reg
Areas are identified in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchy is intended to establish priority
areas for intensification. These intensification areas serve different city, community and
neighbourhood scaled planned functions and may be different in terms of character, scale,
function, and potential to accommodate growth. The City is planned with intensification
areas including a series of nodes and corridors and Belmont Village is planned to
accommodate additional growth.
maximum heights on buildings and
COUNCIL MEMBERS have any concerns that this practice ends up, in the long term, undermining
City of Kitchener: Public engagement is a fundamental part of the Planning process and
almost every development application in Kitchener has been influenced by comments
received through the process. Planning staff endeavor to find a balance of interests when
making their recommendations to Council. Planning staff work to understand how a
development application may change a community, and work with residents to manage
change and to implement solutions to their concerns in the most appropriate way. The
City's current Official Plan was approved in 2014 and will continue to be updated as
changes are made to planning policy at a Provincial and Regional level.
Q: I can see the benefit of this building and have faith in the developer to ensure the community
needs are taken into account as they are members of the local community. My question would
be directed at the City and what the residents /city/Belmont village can do to ensure that this does
not set a precedent for future development this tall closer to Union on Belmont. (who may not
have as close ties to our community
City of Kitchener: Planning staff review every application based on its own merit. The
overall development proposal will be considered when considering additional height, and
any future application would be subject to the same review. Planning policies, zoning
regulations, and design guidelines apply to all development applications.
22
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Given that no pre-emptive Belmont Village plan is proposed, one would surmise that
development simply will jump off the first precedent. Should your neighbourhood-encroachment
parking assumptions not take account that there will probably be approved more buildings of the
scale of this one?
City of Kitchener: If future applications request a parking reduction, justification would be
required, and will be evaluated as part of that application.
Q: I don't understand how setbacks to allow for sidewalks/patios and/or a green space at the rear
of the building warrants taking the structure higher than 8 storeys. Are not setbacks and required
green spaces not mandated by the city? Does the City agree and support developers using the
required setbacks as justification for a higher structure?
City of Kitchener: Setbacks are required through the zoning process whereas green space
on site is an Urban Design Manual requirement. From an urban design perspective City
staff look at setbacks as well as step backs (a setback is the distance between a property
line and a building, and step backs are the distances when a portion of the building is
further set back from other portions of the building), wind and shadow impacts, building
massing and angular plane to determine if they can support the proposed development
as it meets acceptable design criteria. If the proposed development does not meet these
criteria staff will not support the application until revisions to the development proposal
have been made to ensure that it is within acceptable standards.
Q: Sounds like traffic and wind studies completed, are these available to public to review?
City of Kitchener: Yes. The shadow GIF and the preliminary Pedestrian Wind Assessment
report are posted to the City's Sharefile service which can be accessed from the link
posted at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Q: What is your definition of sustainable?
City of Kitchener: The City of Kitchener Official Plan defines "Sustainable/Sustainability"
as the ability to meet the needs of both current and future generations by balancing
cultural, economic, environmental and social elements through thoughtful, comprehensive
and inclusive decision-making. A sustainable community is one that is robust, resilient and
strives to live within its natural limits. Further, "Sustainable Development" is defined as
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
Q: How many apartments are in the building?
City of Kitchener: The proposal is for 163 residential units (including 115 one bedroom
units and 48 two-bedroom units), and 1090 square metres of ground floor commercial
space.
Applicant: There are 163 units in the current plans.
Q: Will there be any provisions to protect against units being used for short-term rental (eg
AirBnB)?
City of Kitchener: The City currently does not license or regulate short term rentals.
Q: The location would be about 1 km from the closest Ion station. This seems too far for a typical
commuter to walk, reducing the likelihood that they will take the Ion and commute. Shouldn't
higher densities be close to Ion line?
City of Kitchener: The City has a planned Urban Structure meaning that every property
ification
23
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Areas are identified in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchy is intended to establish priority
areas for intensification. These intensification areas serve different city, community and
neighbourhood scaled planned functions and may be different in terms of character, scale,
function, and potential to accommodate growth. The City is planned with intensification
areas including a series of nodes and corridors and Belmont Village is planned to
accommodate additional growthincludes policies that permit
buildings designated as Mixed Use in Urban Corridors to be up to 8 12 storeys in height
subject to the applicable policies. The scale of development envisioned in different parts
of the City varies from the types of heights and densities permitted in the Downtown area,
to the heights and densities for Urban Corridors, to the heights and densities in lower
density, established neighbourhood as shown on the Urban Structure.
Q: How can a number of parking places that is smaller than the number of residential units be
considered reasonable?
City of Kitchener: This site is located by the Iron Horse Trail, existing GRT routes, ION rail
and is walkable for pedestrians, all of which promote alternative modes of transportation,
which the City of Kitchener supports. The Applicant is also proposing to unbundle parking
from the sale/rent of each unit, meaning that a parking space is an additional expense and
that a residential unit can be leased or purchased without a parking space.
Q: On the parking front - why would you do a parking study on only 1 weekday and one weekend
day in March - can you truly attest that's a sufficient study? As for the numbers - are you counting
all the areas behind the stores on Belmont? Is that how come up with those numbers?
City of Kitchener: Counting one weekday and one Saturday is acceptable. Figure 4.1 in
the Parking Study & Transportation Demand Management Plan illustrates the available
on-street parking spaces in the area. The report can be found at
www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Q: I live on Earl Street between Rock and Glasgow Streets in a residential neighbourhood. This
traffic light at Belmont and Glasgow. ? 2 lane Glasgow is already often clogged from Westmount
to Earl during peak hours. Given the increase in traffic that will result from this build, can we have
assurances from city staff that you will pre-emptively and pro-actively address this concern.
City of Kitchener: Transportation Services could conduct a study along Earl Street
between Glasgow Street and Rock Avenue to determine the number of vehicles per day,
types of vehicles and speeds of vehicles. The counters are typically in place for 6 days.
Once the data is collected a review and analysis can be completed.
Q: Are there plans for a traffic study (Glasgow and Belmont intersection very busy with Timmies
and trucks for Catalyst). Also wind is a big probably on iron horse trail at Trio On Belmont, is a
wind study planned for this development?
City of Kitchener: Signalized intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Region of
Waterloo and they would be responsible for completing a traffic count at this location. A
preliminary Pedestrian Wind Assessment report was submitted and can be found at
www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Q: When was the traffic study done?
City of Kitchener: The traffic study was dated July 2020, however the data was collected
earlier. There were two types of data collected by the consultant. On-street parking which
was collected on March 5 & 7, 2020 and development traffic which was collected in
Kitchener in 2017 to 2019.
24
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: What does 44 trips refer to - please clarify
City of Kitchener: The 44 trips refers to the total number of estimated vehicles to and from
the proposed site in the PM peak hour.
Q: Was the traffic study done in April 2020?
City of Kitchener: The traffic study was dated July 2020, however the data was collected
earlier. There were two types of data collected by the consultant. On-street parking which
was collected on March 5 & 7, 2020 and development traffic which was collected in
Kitchener in 2017 to 2019.
Q: Yes during COVID time the study was done. That cannot be considered!!!!! It is not realistic
City of Kitchener: The on-street parking data was collected on March 5 and 7, 2020 by the
traffic consultant. The state of emergency for Ontario was put in place on March 17, 2020,
by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Q: People work more shift work these days. Traffic is going to change when we return to the new
normal. Are you taking this into consideration?
City of Kitchener: We are anticipating that traffic volumes and traffic patterns will return to
a more typical state, when COVID-19 lockdowns are not in place.
Q: Was parking study done post Covid - if so it would not be reflective of normal conditions?
City of Kitchener: The on-street parking data that was collected by the traffic consultant
was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic (March 5 & 7, 2020).
Q: Is it possible to obtain the daytime/weekday study showing 40% use. Was this study conducted
during covid-19 pandemic when there could have been less visitors and patrons at the Belmont
Village?
City of Kitchener: The on-street parking data that was collected by the traffic consultant
was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic (March 5 & 7, 2020).
Q: With the number of new residential units being added, what is the acclimation for overnight
guests or resident/owners who decide not to purchase a parking in the proposed building?
City of Kitchener: If a tenant decides not to purchase a parking space then they would be
aware of that and there will be visitor parking spaces provided on-site.
Q: PLEASE answer when the traffic study was done. If during COVID it is not representative of
what we usually experience.
City of Kitchener: The traffic study was dated July 2020, however the data was collected
earlier. There were two types of data collected by the consultant. On-street parking which
was collected on March 5 & 7, 2020 and development traffic which was collected in
Kitchener in 2017 to 2019.
Q: The footprint for the proposed building is very small. Residents will have essentially no private
outdoor space. The entire lot space is taken up by ground level parking. What provision is there
for the residents of the 168 apartments to have space and not overwhelming the small local parks
and the iron horse trail?
City of Kitchener: Balconies will be provided wherever possible within the design to allow
for private amenity space. There will also be roof top outdoor amenity and indoor private
amenity for the residents of the proposed development.
25
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: What percentage of the units will be available for low income individuals?
Applicant: The proposed building does not include any units that would meet a policy
definition or threshold of "affordable".
Q: How much of the proposed variance request is to support affordable housing?
Applicant: The proposed building does not include any units that would meet a policy
definition or threshold of "affordable".
elong here. Neighbourhood is
homogeneous enough as is. What kind of commitment is formally in place with Menno Homes?
If not locked down, will it be as part of approval process?
Applicant: The applicant is currently in the process of finalizing agreements with Menno
Homes. This agreement is not a case of providing affordable housing "in exchange" for
the increased design and height ("bonusing") as part of the planning approvals process.
Q: One of the rationales for reduced parking is the connection to the active transport network,
however the number of bike parking spots is only 10 surface level and only 82 underground. Many
units will have multiple residents each with bikes. Is the developer open to a significant increase
in bike parking?
Applicant: The MIX-2 Zone that currently applies to the property requires 6 outdoor bicycle
parking spaces and 82 indoor bicycle parking spaces. The current plans satisfy these
requirements with 10 outdoor spaces and 82 indoor spaces. These dedicated bicycle
storage rooms are in addition to residents storing bicycles in units (preferred by many
residents) or storage lockers.
Q: Belmont Village is a unique inner city destination for the waterloo region. it is the reason why
we moved into this area. a building this big in the area diminishes the quality if living for our unique
neighbourhood. The developers have given no indication to help in preserving our unique area
with the design and height and understandably as their interest is to make more money. Can you
comment on this statement?
Applicant: The proposed building has been designed to reflect the intent of the established
policy in the City of Kitchener Official Plan, which sees the Belmont Avenue corridor evolve
into a higher intensity, mixed-use corridor with active commercial activities on the ground
floor. The future vision is not a low-rise, low intensity, solely commercial corridor.
Q: How does the developer propose that the village will benefit from their request for variance?
Point to note that even Google has not requested something so out of line with by-laws.
Applicant: On a broad city-planning and city-building exercise, the benefit to the
community and city in general include an enhanced street activity with commercial, the
addition of 300 residents on the doorstep of Belmont businesses, contribution to a better
connection and interface with the Iron Horse Trail, and support for the GRT transit service
including the ION.
Q: Could you tell us whether construction will cause the closure of Belmont Street or of the Iron
Horse Trail. What would the estimated closure times be?
Applicant: Closures to Belmont Avenue or the Iron Horse Trail are not expected for
construction of the proposed building.
26
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Currently there are zero residential units on the site. Wouldn't 100 new units be sufficient
intensification?
Applicant: There are project viability considerations associated with the number of units.
Q: What is the occupancy of the proposed building?
Applicant: The current plans included 163 dwelling units, which would be housing in the
order of 300 residents based on current census patterns for Kitchener.
Q: The assumption that you must use the maximum 4X land area in floor space is not a valid
reason for the height. The question about why so much height is why do you need to have so
many units on this relatively small site? Lower buildings can also be profitable and improve the
neighbourhood.
Applicant: The MIX-2 Zone that currently applies to the property allows a Floor Space
Ratio of 4. The Mixed-Use designation in the Official Plan that currently applies to the site
allows for a 12-storey height, subject to satisfying design conditions.
Q: The video on building massing seems misleading. The developer was never allowed to build
on the entire site. The gradual movement of this massing upwards as a result of required setbacks
and other restrictions seems to be an attempt to "justify" its height. But the setbacks and other
restrictions were always there. Why is it reasonable to suggest otherwise and why do you feel
this justifies building higher? Can you please elaborate further?
Applicant: The intent of the massing discussion was meant to describe the thought
process that informed the proposed design. It progressed from the building setbacks and
floor space intensity requirements of zoning, through the application of the City of
Kitchener's Tall Building Guidelines, and onto architectural effects. Justification for the
proposed height is addressed through the Official Plan policy that contemplates such
height on the east side of Belmont Avenue including the property.
Q: Is the building intended to be built to a LEED standard?
Applicant: The proposed building would not be seeking a LEED certification; however, a
number of the site and building elements that form part of the LEED rating system will be
incorporated into the building design as part of normal practice.
Q: Do you have concrete evidence of anyone interacting people on balconies in high rises?
Applicant: In our experience, there are situations where interaction between balconies is
possible; however, it depends on balcony configuration and design.
Q: How are you going to put trees in the parking lot? These images seem.... not exactly literal.
Applicant: Trees are intended along the edge of the parking area where in transitions into
the sloped edges of the Iron Horse Trail.
Q: I thought development was removing trees at back of development and see any
requirement to add back in
Applicant: The intent as part of the development is to improve and naturalize the "back"
edge of the property when it interfaces with the Iron Horse Trail. Subject to approvals
from the City, this will involve removals and plantings of more appropriate native species
in the space between the Trail and parking area.
27
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Does your plan include planting all of the mature trees you show in your illustrations, including
on the boulevards on Belmont?
Applicant: The applicant would be responsible for the work and plantings in the back edge
of the property towards the Iron Horse Trail, subject to approvals from the City. The
applicant will be coordinating with the City to investigate opportunities for street plantings
in the municipal right-of-way.
Q: How many units and parking spots in the original 8 storey building?
Applicant: There were no plans developed for an 8-storey building. The building concept
("massing concept") was simply to show what the FSR of 4 looked like as an 8-storey
building.
Q: Why they build an 8 storey building and still make a profit? Why 12/13 ? Properties in
the area are selling for 900 0004 plus so what would be the necessity for more stories?
Applicant: The building is not viable at 8 storeys.
Q: Can't the developer show us a mockup of 8 storeys? It would be interesting to see what kind
of opposition is then raised by the residents nearby.
Applicant: The building is not viable at 8 storeys, so modelling such an example is not
warranted for the application process.
Q: not the design, the mews etc. the height. Why the design work with 8 stories?
Applicant: The building is not viable at 8 storeys.
Q: Why can't the developer work within the current bylaw restrictions for this site?
Applicant: The building is not viable at 8 storeys. The applicant is seeking to implement
the direction of the City of Kitchener Official Plan, which allows a maximum height of 12
storeys subject to satisfying certain criteria.
Q: Why can't you provide all of the ground-level so-called benefits with a 37 metre building?
Applicant: The cost of the at grade benefits are significant. Without having additional
density to support the costs the financial modelling for the ground level retail and
associ
accommodated.
Q: Your pull-backs from total lot coverage to make a more human project are always to be
compensated by increased height. Why don't you just make a human-appeal project and absorb
the cost yourselves, rather than have the neighbourhood "subsidize" it with increased height
allowance?
Applicant: The "pull-backs" of the building are designed to address the intent of the City
of Kitchener's Tall Building Guidelines regarding separation and shaping of taller buildings.
The height and design of the ground floor, nature of commercial activities on the ground
floor, scale of the base podium, and relationship of the building the street proportions are
more important considerations of a pedestrian scale.
Q: Can you not make 660 Belmont a people place with all the nice trees and cafes and pedestrian
space without going 49 metres high?
Applicant: This depends on what the extent of the changes are, as there is a point where
the project is not viable.
28
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: I can imagine that the ceilings height has to do with how small the units are - the tall ceilings
will give a sense of space. Is this a correct assumption? Perhaps quoting square footage of the
one and two bedroom units will confirm my assumption.
Applicant: The taller ceiling heights are meant to offer more light into residential units for
the quality of space. The taller building heights are not there to "compensate" for the floor
space of smaller one-bedroom units as suggested, particularly given the upper floors that
are predominately two-bedroom units have the tallest ceiling heights.
Q: If the developer chooses to increase the ceiling height, then why should they not be restricted
by the 37 metre total height allowed, so that they can just include fewer storeys?
Applicant: The Official Plan policy contemplates an increased building height of the greater
of 12 storeys or 37.5 metres for this side of Belmont Avenue including the property, subject
to satisfying the applicable criteria.
Q: Are there to be two floors of penthouse units? Is that why we need to go so high?
Applicant: The submitted buildings plans for the application have three upper floors where
the building "step backs" from the building ends. The 10th floor is the same height as the
building portions below; the 11th floor and 12th floor (the penthouse) are taller than the
rest of the building.
Q: It's deceiving to describe this building in terms of storeys because the ceiling heights are at 12
feet. It would be fairer to list the height of the building (and indicate how much taller it is because
of 12 feet ceilings instead of the usual 8 feet ceiling height). If the increased density argument is
used to support this build (as is customary in our times of intensification), how could 12 feet
ceilings possibly align with this?
Applicant: Both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law use both height in storeys and height
in metres. The Official Plan policy contemplates an increased building height of the
greater of 12 storeys or 37.5 metres for this side of Belmont Avenue including the property,
subject to satisfying the applicable criteria. The proposed applications are not requesting
additional density permission, but rather a height in zoning that reflects the policy
permission of the Official Plan policy.
Q: Is the real reason the building is 13-stories because it would not have been a profitable venture
for the Zehr Group if it was only an 8-story project?
Applicant: The project is not viable as an 8-storey building. The Official Plan, Kitchener's
long-term planning policy document that direct zoning, contemplates 12 storeys buildings
for the building subject to satisfying criteria. The 13th storey is not a full storey in the
sense it is much smaller in footprint than the storey below and there are no residential
units on the floor.
Q: Is it not disingenuous to indicate the plan with the assumption that the city sells the lane? What
does the project look like without the lane?
Applicant: Belmont Lane East's inclusion in the development plans was required to
demonstrate how the site functions with its inclusion. The subject applications will not
approve a specific plan but rather approve a set of permissions and regulations to direct
the future detailed design. The plans would have to be modified should the Lane not be
acquired and form part of the site; however, its exclusion would not preclude the
development of 660 Belmont with the proposed general scale and intensity.
29
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: If the purchase of the lane is not necessary to achieve the proposed building size, why do you
want to own it?
Applicant: The intent for the Lane acquisition is principally a site functionality reason.
Currently, the main 660 Belmont parcel is separated from the back parking area strip along
the Trail. Its acquisition allows for a more seamless design from Belmont to Trail, allows
for an improved mid-block connection, and allows for "flexible: programming of the back
area including the Lane.
Q: We understand that several
have the facts on this?
Applicant: We do not know any details of other property owners or plans.
Q: The designs looked like several of the parking spots are arranged as 2 car private parking
garages with attached storage area. Is that correct, or did I misunderstand the plans (I am not
experienced at reading these designs)? If correct, could you please speak towards the rationale
for that design?
Applicant: The conceptual garage parking plans do show that option.
Q:
streets is NOT a reasonable plan for the residents here (most of which have single lane
driveways). And 27 parking spots
Applicant: Underground parking garages are expensive to construct. This in turn affects
the project viability. The proposed parking satisfied the zoning requirements for
commercial uses.
Q: Please address how the previous parking assessments will take into account something like a
grocery store also being in the building along with all the other concerns raised.
Applicant: The proposed building satisfies the parking requirements applicable to the
property regarding commercial uses.
Q: The community space at the back of the building near the iron horse trail: is it there always or
is it available to be created by clearing cars from the surface parking lot?
Applicant: The intent is that a portion would be always there and the other portion
"converted" from the surface parking area.
Q: Is the public space at rear public or private?
City of Kitchener: A development concept showed the rear parking being repurposed for
public space. It understood that this would be possible for special events but not all the
time as this area is used for commercial/residential visitor parking. Access to privately
owned public space would have to be secured through an easement.
Applicant: The intent would be for a private space that is publicly accessible.
Q: On your overhead diagram the total area is either concrete or asphalt with only green space
being a couple of treetops. How does this fit with the cities Climate Emergency Strategy?
City of Kitchener: The City will require a sustainability statement as a condition of site plan
approval. Compact complete communities that utilize existing infrastructure in urban areas
that are transit supportive help to meet the City's goals and requirements for directing and
managing growth.
Applicant: There is a limited amount of landscaped green space as part of the
development, not dissimilar to most urban intensification projects. Sustainability and
2:
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
preparing for the impacts of climate change go significantly beyond just green space. For
instance, a more intense development close to rapid transit and existing commercial areas
reduces automobile use and environmentally sustainable building practices complement
this core goal.
Q: Has the RSC process been started yet?
City of Kitchener: The City has received a Record of Site Condition for both the east and
west parcel. Copies can be found on the City's website at
www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Applicant: The Record of Site Condition (RSC) has been received for the 660 Belmont
property.
Q: Has there been a study on the effect of the environmental shadow cast to John street and
affected Park, Earl street?
City of Kitchener: There has been a shadow analysis conducted it can be found in the
Urban Design Brief at the following link: www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Applicant: Shadow impact modelling and analysis is contained in the appendix of the
Urban Design Report for the applications. Shadows from the proposed building do not
reach John Street or Park Street. The proposed building's shadows do not extend onto
Earl Street on December 21, do not cast onto Earl Street from 7am to Sunset on June 21,
and do not cast onto Earl Street from 8am to Sunset.
Q: It is my understanding that 4-5 hours of sunshine is typically not considered sufficient for
vegetable gardens. Some of us on Earl St. made significant investments in vegetable gardens in
our back gardens last summer. Is it possible to see what the shade impact would be and at what
time of day on our specific properties?
City of Kitchener: There has been a shadow analysis conducted it can be found in the
Urban Design Brief at the following link: www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Applicant: Shadow impact modelling and analysis is contained in the appendix of the
Urban Design Report for the applications. There are no shadows from the proposed
building onto the rear yard of Earl Street properties between 7am to Sunset on June 21 or
8am to Sunset on September 21.
Q: Plaza View: We don't see any parking spaces at the rear. Where are the loading docks, and
the ramp to the underground parking?
City of Kitchener: A revised site plan has been received and posted online but this plan is
not approved. The city requires a formal site plan approval process where all these details
will be evaluated once detailed plans are provided. See
www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Applicant: Access to the internal loading area and underground garage is on the rear
(east) side of the proposed building.
Q: The plans presented by the consultants show many trees and nice greenery along the street.
far is that trees will be removed for this building.
City of Kitchener: Additional tree plantings will be required along the rear of the property
adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail as per City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual standards.
31
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Trees within the city right of way have not been discussed at this point in the application
process.
Applicant: In the back, the intent as part of the development is to improve and naturalize
the edge of the property where it interfaces with the Iron Horse Trail. Subject to approvals
from the City, this will involve removals and plantings of more appropriate native species
in the space between the Trail and parking area. In the front, the applicant will be
coordinating with the City to investigate opportunities for street plantings in the municipal
right-of-way.
Q: What types of businesses are planned for the commercial units? Are any tenants already
signed?
Applicant: The MIX-2 Zone for the property permits a range of commercial, retail and
personal service uses. Tenanting has not been undertaken yet. The applicant's focus on
retail and restaurant uses that provide activity to the street.
Q: What kinds of businesses are going to be located in the building? Has this been discussed?
Applicant: The MIX-2 Zone for the property permits a range of commercial, retail and
personal service uses. Tenanting has not been undertaken yet. The applicant's focus on
retail and restaurant uses that provide activity to the street.
Q: You talk about the "character" of the Village. We need concrete examples of how you plan to
maintain/increase it. You have a picture of a cafe in the plans. Is there truly one coming in or is
this simply an "idea"?
Applicant: The applicant is designing the ground floor commercial space and
corresponding outdoor spaces to attract commercial tenants that provide activity and
animation along Belmont. This includes restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, small food
stores, and similar uses. This street activity is one benefit from the existing tire dealership
use; others include the addition of 300 residents on the doorstep of Belmont businesses,
contribution to a better connection and interface with the Iron Horse Trail, and support for
the GRT transit service including the ION.
Q: What kinds of shops? Bookstore? Small grocery store? Something that we the residents can
actually use?
Applicant: The applicant's focus on retail and restaurant uses that provide activity to the
street. A small grocery store is certainly a desire of the applicant for the ground floor.
Q: I was happy to see 40% of the units are two bedroom. It's a big problem when developments
are proposed with too much focus on only 1 bedroom units. However, I was disappointed to see
no 3 or 4 bedroom units. Families often need at least 3 bedrooms, particularly if they have a boy
and a girl. Would the developer be open to reserving at least 10% of the units for 3+ bedroom
units to better accommodate families?
Applicant: Three-bedroom units are not proposed for the building.
Q: what are the square footages proposed for the 1 and 2 bedroom units?
Applicant: Floor plans continue to evolve for the development concepts. Current plans
generally provide for a range between 500 and 700 square feet for one-bedroom units to
1,000 to 1,200 for two-bedroom rooms square feet. Upper floor and penthouse units offer
opportunities for larger unit sizes.
32
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Why can't there be 3-bedroom units for families, like in larger metropolitan areas? Isn't that
where we are headed?
Applicant: Three-bedroom units are not proposed for the building for reasons of project
viability.
Q: In addition to the shadow study, have you investigated how the visibility of the bulk of the
building will affect "view planes" from nearby residential areas?
City of Kitchener: A view plane analysis has not been conducted as part of this application
as view planes are typically created to preserve the view to a unique place or historic
element from an adjacent location. With that noted views (i.e. terminal street views and
skyline) to the proposed development will be considered through the review process.
Applicant: Building massing models are used as part of the design process to explore
building profiles; however, there are no requirements for view impact assessments.
Q: Can you show a visual overlay of what the proposed building and parking will look like, on an
overlay of the current google maps view?
Applicant: We can prepare such an overlay if it assists the project understanding.
Q: The building of the Bauer Lofts promised that wind would not be a problem, but anyone who
has walked along the corridor that connects the Lofts with and the Bauer Kitchen
knows that this promise failed - it is an incredible wind tunnel. Why would this not occur with this
project?
City of Kitchener: A preliminary Pedestrian Wind Assessment report has been provided
and a detailed study would be a requirement of site plan approval to ensure that all
outdoor/pedestrian areas are comfortable for year-round use. All recommendations of the
approved wind study would be implemented by plans approved (i.e. building elevations
and landscape plan) through the site plan process.
Applicant: A preliminary Pedestrian Wind Assessment report was completed as part of the
submission of the complete application for the property. The Study models and assesses
safety and comfort impacts from the proposed building. The Study demonstrated there are
no unacceptable impacts on Belmont sidewalks, Trail, Gildner Green or the surrounding
area.
Q: Your massing revisions are to "pull volume away" from the neighbouring property to the Union
side, which seems kind, but this same developer owns that neighbouring property, right?
Applicant: The applicant also owns the abutting property; however, the massing revisions
presented at the second Neighbourhood Information meeting were made to address the
City of Kitchener's Tall Building Guidelines regarding separation distance, per the
comments of City staff.
Q: Maybe the City could retain the laneway and make it into a city-owned promenade / green
space leading to the trail, thereby increasing municipal green space. That would be nice.
City of Kitchener: At this time, the application is proposing a laneway that is required for
vehicular through-circulation, however through the site plan process there could be an
opportunity to create an extension of greenspace connecting to the Iron Horse Trail.
Q: So are the developers PAYING for a revamped greenspace?
City of Kitchener: Developers contribute for parkland based on the City of Kitchener
Parkland Dedication Policy. If the developer chooses to install Privately-Owned, Publicly-
33
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
accessible Spaces (POPS), or creates parkland space to be conveyed to the City as part
of the development, the collected development charges are used by the City to support
these new public amenities. If no public parkland amenities are created as part of this
development, these fees are retained by the City and re-invested into City parkland.
Q: en space to native species.... confused what green space that is and
role of Zehr Dev..... is...Zehr and/or City re-activating native systems along the iron horse? Or is
a sliver of the Zehr proposal?
City of Kitchener: The developer's intent is to remove any invasive shrubs and declining
older trees species from their property as well as potentially within a portion of the Iron
Horse Trail corridor, and re-vegetate these areas with appropriate native species.
Q: How will you ensure the green space will be protected when building?
City of Kitchener: All areas adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail will be delineated with
construction/protective and silt fencing no grading or encroachment will be permitted on
City owned lands without consent.
Q: Ho
City of Kitchener: The City of Kitchener recently approved a Housing Strategy. Affordable
housing is a key priority for the City. Planning staff continue to work with the development
industry to support affordable housing initiatives on every development application.
Q: What is the benefit to the city of granting this variance?
City of Kitchener: The City will review the proposed amenities that are proposed as part
of the development. Compact complete communities that utilize existing infrastructure in
urban areas that are transit supportive help to meet the City's goals and requirements for
directing and managing growth.
Applicant: On a broad city-planning and city-building exercise, the benefit to the
community and city in general include an enhanced street activity with commercial, the
addition of 300 residents on the doorstep of Belmont businesses, contribution to a better
connection and interface with the Iron Horse Trail, and support for the GRT transit service
including the ION.
Q:
Design Man-rise, compact urban form in Upper
Belmont (2-5 storeys with step backs for increased height). 660 Belmont is in Upper Belmont,
which is Belmont Ave W from Glasgow to Union.
City of Kitchener: The City has a planned Urban Structure meaning that every property
Areas are identified in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchy is intended to establish priority
areas for intensification. These intensification areas serve different city, community and
neighbourhood scaled planned functions and may be different in terms of character, scale,
function, and potential to accommodate growth. The City is planned with intensification
areas including a series of nodes and corridors and Belmont Village is planned to
buildings designated as Mixed Use in Urban Corridors to be up to 8 12 storeys in height
subject to the applicable policies. The scale of development envisioned in different parts
of the City varies from the types of heights and densities permitted in the Downtown area,
to the heights and densities for Urban Corridors, to the heights and densities in lower
density, established neighbourhood as shown on the Urban Structure.
34
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Isnt 8 storeys the max. why would a 50% increase be allowed?
City of Kitchener: Official Plan policy 15.D.4.23 allows the City to consider increases to
the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a
development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units.
It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the
streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable
policies within this Plan are satisfied. A Zoning By-law Amendment application is still
required to increase the building height.
Q: Maximum height is 8 storeys but 12 storeys is allowed. Why not just allow 12 storeys? These
bylaws are clearly targeted to address the developer - not the people that live nearby.
City of Kitchener: The Official Plan and the Zoning By-law both regulate maximum building
height by storeys and metres. Currently, the Official Plan permits a maximum building
height of 8 storeys and 25 metres, whichever is greater, on lands designated Mixed Use
as an Urban Corridor. However, increases in building height, up to 50%, are permitted for
mixed-use buildings without an Official Plan Amendment (in this case, 12 storeys or 37.5
metres). The Official Plan Amendment requests to increase the maximum building height
to 13 storeys and a height of 49 metres. The current zoning is MIX-2: Mixed Use Two
which permits a maximum height of 25 metres and 8 storeys. The Zoning By-law
Amendment Application also requests to increase the maximum height to 13 Storeys (49
metres).
Q: When did Zehr notify Dettmer that they had to find another location? As they advised us months
ago they were moving I guess the Zehr group felt they could just go ahead without any problems
and build what they want.
City of Kitchener: We are not aware of any discussions between the Developer and
Dettmer Tirecraft.
Applicant: Yes, after purchasing the 660 Belmont property, Zehr Group gave ample
notice and worked with the existing tenant regarding timing for vacating the building.
Q: So am I hearing you correctly - the City has already accepted/approved this will be minimum
12 storeys?
City of Kitchener: No decisions have been made at this time.
Q: Is plan section 15.D.4.23 UP TO 50 % density increase at the discretion of the City? What
determines whether any % increase will occur. What determines the % increase in density that
is allowed? (from 0 % UP TO 50 %)
City of Kitchener: Official Plan policy 15.D.4.23 allows the City to consider increases to
the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a
development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units.
It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the
streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable
policies within this Plan are satisfied. A Zoning By-law Amendment application is still
required to increase the building height.
Q: First of all, we are in support of the development of this site. However, the development of this
strip of Belmont should be consistent from Union to Glasgow. We have difficulty accepting that
this development is three times higher than the rest of this strip. There should be a plan that
incorporates the entire strip and what is trying to be accomplished with respect to this unique
area.
35
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
City of Kitchener: Both sides of Belmont Avenue are designated in the Official Plan as
Mixed Use. The current zoning on the west side permits up to 14 metres and 4 storeys.
The zoning on the east side of Belmont permit 8 storeys and 25 metres.
Q: The by-law provision that enables increase from 8 to 12 stories seems "circular". The by-law
section is said to apply to mixed use development, then it says that increased height will be
granted if the development has mixed uses. Please explain this provision in detail.
City of Kitchener: Official Plan policy 15.D.4.23 allows the City to consider increases to
the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a
development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units.
It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the
streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable
policies within this Plan are satisfied. A Zoning By-law Amendment application is still
required to increase the building height.
Applicant: The Official Plan policy contemplates an increased building height of the greater
of 12 storeys or 37.5 metres for this side of Belmont Avenue including the property, subject
to satisfying the applicable criteria.
Q: Mixed zone, if appropriate, seems to indicate 8 storey or 25 m is limit, why is a 50% increase
allowed - make sense
City of Kitchener: Official Plan policy 15.D.4.23 allows the City to consider increases to
the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a
development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units.
It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the
streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable
policies within this Plan are satisfied. A Zoning By-law Amendment application is still
required to increase the building height.
Q: Why would the City even consider a development opportunity of this magnitude for this site
-31 to B-34, recommends, for
Upper Belmont Avenue (i.e. Belmont Village);
Built Form: Maintain low-rise, compact urban form in Upper Belmont (2-5 storeys with
step backs for increased height).
Building Design: Maintain flat, or mansard rooflines in Upper Belmont with articulated
rooflines (pitched roofs or tower elements) at gateway intersections. Emphasis on
articulated facades and window openings in both sections.
Parking: Maintain existing laneway access and locate parking behind buildings
Underutilized 0.25 ha property. Encourage low rise (3-4 storey) mixed use building.
City of Kitchener: Part A This section contains Urban Design Guidelines that were
approved between 2017 and 2019. There are 13 sections that are applied based on the
geography and planned function of a property (Downtown, Nodes and Corridors, etc) as
well as based on the building typology (tall building, mid-rise building, etc). Part B This
section of the Urban Design Manual contains area specific guidelines are that are specific
to drive through facilities, mix-use corridors and Queen Street Placemaking. The mixed-
use corridors (now known as Urban Corridors) Area Specific Design Brief dates back to
2003. In 2003, Kitchener City Council supported the general principles outlined in the
Mixed Use Corridor Urban Design Brief and directed staff to undertake a final public
36
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Design Manual. In 2005, Council approved the Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief, largely
as it exists today. The current Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief was brought into the
the bottom. Since 2005, the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan,
Regional Official Plan, Kitchener Official Plan, Zoning By-law 2019-051, and Part A of the
UDM have been approved, and updated policy direction is not reflected in those older
sections. Part C This section contains specific design standards that are used to
evaluate a specific proposal or plan (site plan, lighting plan, etc). This section was
prepared by City staff and is updated as standards and regulations change, or when new
requirements are established. This section is updated and review
Designers.
Q: In order to go from 8 stories to 12 stories, what percent of the building needs to be commercial
units?
City of Kitchener: Residential uses are not permitted on the ground floor and only permitted
to be located within a mixed use building, and except for access, the ground floor shall
contain at least one non-residential permitted use listed in the zoning that abuts the entire
length of the street line façade.
Q: What is the cities position on the excessive building height?
City of Kitchener: Planning Staff will take a position on the applications once they are
prepared to make a recommendation on this matter.
Q: Can the City refuse to sell the laneway to the applicant?
City of Kitchener: No commitments have been made to sell the lane. The decision of
whether or not to sell Belmont Lane will be determined by Kitchener City Council.
Q: I would like information on East Belmont Lane, please. There are utilities under the (sewer and
water). At whose expense will they be relocated and will they be placed under Belmont Ave or at
the rear of the properties? The lane, moreover, is currently public land and is being transferred to
private ownership for the private benefit of the developer. What compensation will be provided to
the neighbourhood for the loss of this public good?
City of Kitchener: There are two options for services; relocate the services in public road,
the lane; the intent can be maintained and all functions can continue and the City would
not have to maintain the lane. The lane would be sold at fair market value.
Q: What does the neighbourhood get in return for the laneway we're losing?
City of Kitchener: The lane would be sold to the City at fair market value.
Q: Why does the developer get to buy the lane over anyone else for example Tim Hortons?
City of Kitchener: The City looks at purchase requests to determine if they are feasible.
The City has not received
Q: Why was the sale of Belmont Lane not discussed in the previous NIM or other City
correspondence with the public?
City of Kitchener: The City received questions about the lane purchase request following
the initial circulation and used the second meeting as an opportunity to provide additional
information. The initial circulation letter did identify the lane purchase request and noted
"The owner is pursuing the acquisition of the subject portion of the Lane through the
proposed application process".
37
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Are these plans based on obtaining the lane from the city?
Applicant: The proposed plans as submitted do include Belmont Lane East as part of the
property fabric. The plans would have to be modified should the Lane not be acquired and
form part of the site; however, its exclusion would not preclude the development of 660
Belmont with the proposed general scale and intensity.
Q: How many people are attending this meeting? Why can't we see the number of concerned
neighbours?
City of Kitchener: The Zoom report shows 97 different log ons for the first meeting and
154 for the second meeting.
Q:
residents in City Council meetings) so as to maximize the amount of time for residents to have
their questions answered?
City of Kitchener: We can certainly appreciate that the virtual style of Neighbourhood
Information Meeting used did not afford the residents the same ability to speak as the
panelists. This model is temporary during the pandemic and used when there is a large
number of residents attending to ensure we can try to address as many questions as
possible during the meeting. Following the second Neighbourhood Information Meeting,
the Planning Division held ten small group meetings with a maximum of 15 people in
attendance so that everyone had an opportunity to speak and ask questions.
Q: Will there be an official gathering of names in opposition to this project? Petition?...
City of Kitchener: All comments received, as well as the "What We Heard" report and this
consultation summary, will be attached to the final staff report. The City does not
coordinate petitions on development applications.
Q: gathering names in opposition is a good idea. will the planners facilitate this?
City of Kitchener: All comments received, as well as the "What We Heard" report and this
consultation summary, will be attached to the final staff report. The City does not
coordinate petitions on development applications.
Q: We're running out of time. When will questions be answered?
City of Kitchener: All comments received, as well as the "What We Heard" report and this
consultation summary, will be attached to the final staff report.
Q: Why are we being presented once again with a sales job and not discussing the concerns. ?
City of Kitchener: This report includes responses to all questions received through the
Q&A function from both Neighbourhood Information Meetings.
Q: Why are developers whose primary interest is making profit dictating to the neighborhood what
is best for the area? All I am hearing is the marketing message for potential buyers as opposed
to what the actual reality may be.
City of Kitchener: Planning Staff will ultimately make a recommendation on this matter to
Kitchener City Council, who will make the decision on the applications.
Q: Wh
2014 (or since).
City of Kitchener: In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, the City is required
to prepare and update an Official Olan. The Official Plan is a legal document that contains
38
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
goals, objectives and policies to manage and direct physical and land use change and
their effects on the cultural, social, economic and natural environment within the city. The
Official Plan was substantially updated in 2014 and that work included a comprehensive
public consultation process between 2010 and 2014.
Q: The brown area indicated on City zone map (Map 2) as Urban Corridor and would be zoned
for 8 storey seems to end at Glasgow. Beyond that including 660 Belmont seems to be a
Community area. Can zoning in proposed area be made clearer
City of Kitchener: On Map 2, 660 Belmont Avenue is within the grey hatched area,
meaning it is part of the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). However, the City has
prepared a draft Midtown Secondary Plan which proposes revisions to the MTSA
boundary to align with the Iron Horse Trail. These lands would then be identified as an
Urban Corridor. Since the draft of the MTSA, the Region has prepared draft proposed
boundaries around ION Rapid Transit Station Areas as part of the ongoing Regional
Official Plan review.
Q: Being one of the closest neighbours can I protest this development?
City of Kitchener: You will be informed of all future meetings regarding these applications.
These applications will be considered at a future public meeting held by the Planning and
Strategic Initiatives Committee and Kitchener City Council. You may attend as a
delegation to each of these meetings. You will be informed when they are scheduled by
mail and/or email.
Q: How will you limit the number of residents who host visitors that need parking so that 27 spaces
will be sufficient at all times?
Applicant: The proposed plan satisfies the minimum parking requirements for visitor
parking as required in the Kitchener Zoning By-law.
Q: Would the public space/square be under control of city or developer? if developer then not
truly public
City of Kitchener: A development concept showed the rear parking being repurposed for
public space. It is understood that this would be possible for special events but not all the
time as portions of this area will be used for commercial/residential visitor parking. Access
to privately owned public space would have to be secured through an easement.
Applicant: It would be a privately-owned and publicly-accessible space in the rear of the
site.
Q: Would allowing a 13-story building set a precedent for the Belmont Village area? Could we not
expect a 13-story building proposed for the corner of Union and Belmont, site of a former gas
station?
City of Kitchener: Planning staff review every application based on its own merit. The
overall development proposal will be considered when considering additional height, and
any future application would be subject to the same review.
Q: When will we receive a complete report of all of the questions asked at the December 17th
meeting and also at this meeting? We want the complete text of all questions and their answers.
City of Kitchener: This report includes responses to all questions received through the
Q&A function from both Neighbourhood Information Meetings.
39
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Out of the comments received to date, what percentage support and what percentage oppose?
City of Kitchener: Comments received to date largely oppose the building height and other
aspects of the development, but we need to consider the planned function of the area as
well as the future residents of the City as well.
Q: Other than the Zehr big business are there other big businesses interested/involved in wanting
to over develop the Belmont Village area?
City of Kitchener: The City has not received any other Official Plan Amendment or Zoning
By-law Amendment applications for Belmont Village.
Q: I am at Gildner & Eden street an am one of the closest neighbours to this development and
want to oppose this development how can I do this do I not have to agree or sign off on this ? I
will not agree to this.
City of Kitchener: You are welcome to write in or speak at future public meetings but first
we will respond to comments. The Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting
has not been scheduled. There will be a public meeting and you will be notified by email
and/or mail.
Q: Can the city refuse the amendment request for 13 stories and limit the developer to 8?
City of Kitchener: Planning staff will make an independent recommendation on the
applications. Council can support or refuse the application, or approve a modified version
of the request.
Q: We have been to other planning meetings where re-zoning was requested, both here in KW
afraid that this one is nothing
but advertising for Zehr Group. Is this what the Planning department really intended it to be?
City of Kitchener: Public engagement is a fundamental part of the Planning process and
almost every development application in Kitchener has been influenced by comments
received through the process. We can certainly appreciate that the virtual style of
Neighbourhood Information Meeting used did not afford the residents the same ability to
speak as the panelists. This model is temporary during the pandemic and used when there
is a large number of residents attending to ensure we can try to address as many
questions as possible during the meeting. Large scale meetings are effective in sharing
information, they were supplemented with ten small group meetings between City staff
and the residents.
Q: Is the City also considering the written submissions made last fall?
City of Kitchener: Yes. All written comments will also be attached to the staff report.
Q: What is the
being requested? What kinds of things has the City considered for similar requests previously?
Is the shadow animation publicly available?
City of Kitchener: Yes. The shadow GIF is posted to the City's Sharefile service which can
be accessed from the link posted at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Applicant: The animations have been provided to the City. All base shadow graphics for
four seasons are contained in the Urban Design Report submitted for the complete
applications.
Q: What would have been permitted at this site and on this stretch of Belmont prior to the CRZBY
(not sure if that is the right acronym) rezoning project? Would this project have been acceptable
3:
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
before? If not, was the city lobbied at the time of the CRZBY rezoning project by developers to
make projects such this this be allowed on Belmont? In other words, did developers have
influence on the Belmont rezoning?
City of Kitchener: The previous zoning was Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor which
had a maximum height of 8 storeys and 24 metres. The mixed-use corridor and MIX zoning
were City-initiated amendments.
Q: How do we get the zoning changed for the rest of that side of Belmont Village?
City of Kitchener: A site specific Zoning By-law Amendment application would be required.
For more information, please see https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-
construction/zoning-bylaw-amendment.aspx
Q: You indicate 4 times coverage , why is that the minimum size to make a profit?
City of Kitchener: The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is a measure used to regulate building
mass based on a lot area. A FSR of 4 means that a building can have 4 times the lot area
(in building floor area) above ground. The City of Kitchener uses FSR as a tool to regulate
building mass, in addition to zoning regulations (such as setbacks and height) and Urban
Design policies and guidelines. The smaller the floor of each building, the more floors that
could be added within the FSR limit of 4.0. For example, if a building only covered half of
a lot, and at the FSR allowed is 4.0, it could be 8 storeys in height. FSR is only one
measure of building size, which is why other regulations, such as building height, are used
in the zoning.
Q: W
City of Kitchener: The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is a measure used to regulate building
mass based on a lot area. A FSR of 4 means that a building can have 4 times the lot area
(in building floor area) above ground. The City of Kitchener uses FSR as a tool to regulate
building mass, in addition to zoning regulations (such as setbacks and height) and Urban
Design policies and guidelines. The smaller the floor of each building, the more floors
could be added within the FSR limit of 4.0. For example, if a building only covered half of
a lot, and at the FSR allowed is 4.0, it could be 8 storeys in height. FSR is only one
measure of building size, which is why other regulations, such a building height, are used
in the zoning.
Q: Regarding the cafe style seating along Belmont it was mentioned a few times it is the sunny
side. What is the zoning across the street and how do you propose keeping this area sunny after
future development?
City of Kitchener: The zoning on the opposite side of Belmont (on the east side) permits
buildings up to 4 storeys and 14 metres. Belmont Avenue is quite wide in this location so
shadows should not be of concern.
Q: What was the rationale in the original zoning designation limiting the height to 25m?
City of Kitchener: Mixed Use (MU) Corridor zones were applied to the entire Belmont
Mixed Use Corridor in early 2012. All properties in the corridor were zoned as either Low
Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-1) or Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2). No
parcels were changed to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-3). In assigning the Mixed
Use Corridor zone categories staff had regard for the Official Plan designation for Mixed
Use Corridors which emphasizes the importance of achieving a built form that is
compatible with surrounding residential neighbourhoods. Generally, the MU-1 zone was
applied in areas that abut low rise residential development. The MU-2 zone is proposed
where development could be adequately separated from low rise residential development
41
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
(along the east side of Belmont Avenue or larger development sites) or to recognize
existing conditions (existing apartment buildings). The new MIX zones that were applied
recently as part of the City's new Zoning By-law essentially brought forward similar
permissions as the MU zones.
Q: Why is there no community consultation when zoning decisions are made?
City of Kitchener: Public engagement is a fundamental part of the Planning process and
almost every development application in Kitchener has been influenced by comments
received through the process. Planning staff endeavor to find a balance of interests when
making their recommendations to Council. Planning staff work to understand how a
development application may change a community, and work with residents to manage
change and to implement solutions to their concerns in the most appropriate way. The
Planning Act requires that notice be provided to properties located within 120 metres of a
development application and the City has followed this practice for this application. As
opportunities to improve our public engagement practices, the City is exploring
opportunities to expand the circulation radius for notice of development applications in
order to provide more broad notice of future development proposals.
Q: During construction, how many lanes of Belmont will be shut down for how long?
City of Kitchener: During the process of site plan approval, and prior to the issuance of a
building permit, the City requires a developer to prepare a construction management plan
to outline how construction will be managed in and around the development site while the
site is under construction. The construction management plan is reviewed by staff in
multiple departments including Transportation, Building, Planning and others, if required,
to ensure that disruption to adjacent properties and the neighbourhood is minimized as
much as possible. Applicant: Lane closures are not expected.
Q: Is it true that this proposed building will have less parking spots than units? Are there to be
outdoor parking spots for visitors to the tenants of this building? Will this not challenge the already
limited spots in the Village? Consider how the restaurants made use of the street for outdoor
seating this summer (2020).
-law has geographic specific parking requirements
based on established and planned public transportation routes. Generally, the more public
and active transportation options available to a community, the less parking is required.
For a mixed use building with in the MIX-2 zone, the parking requirement is 0.9 spaces
per dwelling unit. The application requests to reduce the parking required to 0.8 spaces
per dwelling unit. No reductions are being sought for commercial parking requirements.
The Zoning By-law allows commercial and residential visitor parking to be shared for
mixed-use buildings.
Q: What consideration is made for the additional traffic and parking needs of visitors of the tenants
of this proposed development? It's fine to have ample parking for the tenants/occupants but they
will surely entertain family and friends who come to visit.
City of Kitchener: Through the development process for this site, on-site visitor parking is
being provided.
Q: Why did the parking study look at availability of on street parking within 200 metres of the
proposed development if it was felt that the site itself could supply sufficient parking?
City of Kitchener: Off-site parking was reviewed and taken into account to demonstrate
the various parking options available.
42
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Any thoughts about when we are back to
and driving in the area from before 6 am until 10 pm. Earl street is already (even tonight) having
them park there. Adding this development is not helping the local traffic issues.
City of Kitchener: Through the development process for this site, on-site visitor parking is
being provided.
Q: What was the methodology used to determine the number of parking spots for the original
bylaw compared to the methodology used in the new proposal wherein the number of units has
an increase proposal but a decrease in parking spots
City of Kitchener: Some of the parking regulations in zoning by-law 85-1 are outdated.
When the city reviewed the parking rates for the new zoning by-law, it was determined
from a study completed by a consultant, that the City was over supplying parking and
therefore, reduced parking rates were proposed.
Q: If each condo has an average of 1 parking spot, what happens when there are visitors? Side
y frustrating trying to navigate parked cars in the
surrounding streets. The parking strain on side streets has been underestimated.
City of Kitchener: Through the development process for this site, on-site visitor parking is
being provided.
Q: Parking and traffic is a very critical issue. In a non-pandemic area, it can be difficult trying to
find parking when accessing a facility in the Belmont strip. Also increased traffic is a concern. The
current traffic patterns cannot accommodate much more than what is currently happening. We
live on Glasgow and can attest to the high traffic flow. What needs to be addressed is how
increased traffic flow can be adjusted to deal with speed and congestion.
City of Kitchener: Transportation Services could conduct a study along Glasgow Street to
determine the number of vehicles per day, types of vehicles and speeds of vehicles. The
counters are typically in place for 6 days. Once the data is collected, a review and analysis
can be completed.
Q: Impacts like parking overflow are only acknowledged as regards this particular project, but it
is inevitable that there will be further like projects in this locale. Please acknowledge how
cumulative impacts will occur and whether they will be appropriate.
City of Kitchener: Transportation Services review development applications on a case by
case basis. Any potential parking reductions are also on a case by case basis and are
accompanied by a parking justification report.
Applicant: We can only speak to the 660 Belmont project, which was the subject of a
Parking Study that demonstrated the minor reduction of residential parking rates is
appropriate.
Q: Is the intent of the City to install parking metres?
City of Kitchener: There have been no recent discussions at the City of installing parking
metres along Belmont Avenue West or Belmont Lane.
Q: What contingency plans are in place in case the "confidence" your staff has in their
traffic/parking forecasts turns out to be misplaced?
City of Kitchener: Through the development process for this site, the applicant has
retained a traffic consultant and the consultant has provided justification for a reduced
parking rate which the City of Kitchener has supported.
43
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: There are 149 units and 131 parking spots and no visitor parking , so I am to understand that
to park on residential street every day?
City of Kitchener: Through the development process for this site, on-site visitor parking is
being provided.
Q: Why is a utilization rate for parking at 50% interpreted as viable for greater use? 100% of
parking spaces used is not walking/child/family friendly. Rock and Earl already see overflow from
existing businesses all through the day. Also, just imposing 3 hour limits has effects for the
neighbourhood that may not be welcome - e.g., family visitors would also be limited.
City of Kitchener: 3hr maximum parking limits are general parking provisions that are
applicable throughout the city. They are not signed and only enforced on a complaint
basis. But it is a tool to control any on-street parking abuse. Overflow into the
neighbourhood is not expected, but there is capacity should it occur. That said, a limited
increase in on-street parking should not impact the walking, family atmosphere that the
neighbourhood currently enjoys.
Q: It is hard to reconcile only 27 non-resident parking spaces with a grocery store. Care to
comment?
City of Kitchener: The number of parking spaces are based on the gross floor area and
based on the zoning by-law, 30 parking space are required and are being provided.
Q: How much extra traffic does your study show the grocery store will create?
City of Kitchener: Based on the current zoning by-law, the required commercial parking
and visitor parking is being provided and shared in the surface parking lot. Shared
parking means that parking spaces are shared by more than one user, which allows
parking areas to be used more efficiently. Shared parking takes advantage of the fact that
most parking spaces are only used part of the time and many parking areas have a
significant portion of unused parking spaces. Efficient sharing of parking spaces allows for
reduced parking requirements.
Q: Did the parking study reflect the construction on Earl Street for the entire spring , summer?
City of Kitchener: The traffic study was dated July 2020, however the data was collected
earlier. There were two types of data collected by the consultant. On-street parking which
was collected on March 5 & 7, 2020 and development traffic which was collected in
Kitchener in 2017 to 2019.
Q: Has the study looked at the increased parking on Earl Street, Rock Avenue that visitors etc
will generate?
City of Kitchener: The parking study that was submitted did not look at Earl Street and
Rock Avenue specifically. The study did look at the available on-street parking on each
street.
Q: Has there been thought to the traffic impact on Glasgow by Westmount School, given the
speeding and traffic issues already faced by that school?
City of Kitchener: Transportation Services could conduct a study along Glasgow Street
between Westmount Road West and Dunbar Road to determine the number of vehicles
per day, types of vehicles and speeds of vehicles. The counters are typically in place for
6 days. Once the data is collected a review and analysis can be completed.
44
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: When was the parking assessment on Earl St. completed? Was it during the pandemic?
City of Kitchener: The traffic study was dated July 2020, however the data was collected
earlier. There were two types of data collected by the consultant. On-street parking which
was collected on March 5 & 7, 2020 and development traffic which was collected in
Kitchener in 2017 to 2019.
Applicant: The Parking Study and TDM Plan submitted for the applications was based on
site turning access movements counted on February 5, 2019 and on-street parking
utilization counted on March 5, 2020.
Q: Can someone explain "Building Masing". It appears to be an architect's excuse to justify
surpassing zoning building heights.
City of Kitchener: Building massing is the creation of boxes to define the volume of a
proposed building. The boxes generated as part of massing review are non-descript in
nature and do not have windows or finishes noted on them. The intent of this massing
review is to create and assess different sized buildings in three dimensions and then test
them for shadow and wind impacts and functional floorplates to determine if they meet
acceptable standards. If the applicant feels that the massing is acceptable it is presented
(along with other studies and drawings) to staff for review. Staff review the massing and
associated documents and determine if it meets acceptable criteria and can be supported
if not a revised massing review is required to address staff concerns.
Q: Is the document "City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual" dated 2014 out of date?
City of Kitchener: Part A This section contains Urban Design Guidelines that were
approved between 2017 and 2019. There are 13 sections that are applied based on the
geography and planned function of a property (Downtown, Nodes and Corridors, etc) as
well as based on the building typology (tall building, mid-rise building, etc). Part B This
section of the Urban Design Manual contains area specific guidelines are that are specific
to drive through facilities, mix-use corridors and Queen Street Placemaking. The mixed-
use corridors (now known as Urban Corridors) Area Specific Design Brief dates back to
2003. In 2003, Kitchener City Council supported the general principles outlined in the
Mixed Use Corridor Urban Design Brief and directed staff to undertake a final public
Design Manual. In 2005, Council approved the Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief, largely
as it exists today. The current Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief was brought into the
the bottom. Since 2005, the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan,
Regional Official Plan, Kitchener Official Plan, Zoning By-law 2019-051, and Part A of the
UDM have been approved, and updated policy direction is not reflected in those older
sections. Part C This section contains specific design standards that are used to
evaluate a specific proposal or plan (site plan, lighting plan, etc). This section was
prepared by City staff and is updated as standards and regulations change, or when new
Designers.
Q: What impact will the shadows have on the community gardens in Gildner Green?
City of Kitchener: Additional shadow impacts to Gildner green from the proposed massing
will be limited as there is existing vegetation shadowing this location currently.
Applicant: On the June 21 measured periods, there are no shadows cast by the proposed
building on Gildner Green between sunrise and 4pm.
45
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: There are community gardens at Gildner Green. How will the shadows affect growing efficacy?
City of Kitchener: Additional shadow impacts to Gildner green from the proposed massing
will be limited as there is existing vegetation shadowing this location currently.
Applicant: On the June 21 measured periods, there are no shadows cast by the proposed
building on Gildner Green between sunrise and 4pm.
Q: The shadows are illustrated for a September date which are thus slightly shorter than those at
the equinox. Could they please show the maximum and minimum (i.e. dec 21 and June 21)?
Applicant: Shadow impact analysis is provided for June 21, September 21, and March 21
in the submitted Urban Design Report for the applications.
Q: The animation of the impact of shadows is very concerning...why is this considered to be
standards you can share?
City of Kitchener: The Urban Design Manual references a cumulative total of 5 hours of
sunlight as being acceptable for sidewalks, parks and trails, etc. Typically 4-5 hours
cumulatively is used for rear yards on private property as well.
Applicant: Municipalities have different procedures for undertaking shadow studies and
varying criteria for determining reasonableness or acceptability of impacts.
Q: Shadowing: Would like more information. From the brief provided it would look like many
property owners to the east would be in shadow for all of the spring/summer fall evenings when
they would want to use their back yards. Having full sun in the morning is little compensation
City of Kitchener: The shadow study provided does not indicate this. The applicant
provided a shadow study within the design brief that can be reviewed by the resident for
further information at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications.
Applicant: The complete four-season shadow modelling and assessment is provided in
the Urban Design Report submitted for the complete applications. For June 21, the
shadows do not extend onto the residential properties to the east at any period; for
September 21, the shadows do extend onto certain properties at 5pm, but to a certain
degree overlap existing shadows.
Q: I would like to know if the trees in the Design Character are part of the plan. You mentioned
the building would be 5 metres away to allow patio. But here there are patios, sidewalk and trees.
This seems much wider than 5 metres. Can you address these distances and also whether all
these trees on the sidewalks and in the middle of the road are part of the plan?
City of Kitchener: Trees will be required and will be shown on a Landscape Plan at the
site planning stage.
Q: So 5 metres from the curb to the building? Based on the artist's rendering are you narrowing
Belmont Avenue?
City of Kitchener: There is no intent to narrow Belmont Avenue as part of this application.
Q: Will there be any trees that will be cut down as noted earlier (10) approximately
City of Kitchener: There are trees proposed to be removed the final quantity will be
determined through the site plan process.
Q: Will the trees that have to be cut down on the Trail be replaced?
City of Kitchener: If trees are required to be removed compensation plantings will be
determined on a tree by tree basis to the satisfaction of City Parks and Operations staff.
46
Appendix A Question and Answer Summary Table -Neighbourhood Information Meetings
Q: Is the developer planting trees & gardens on the opposite of the street too as this slide
portrays?
City of Kitchener: The applicant will not be planting trees or gardens on the other side of
Belmont Ave.
Q: Are trees shown on street and boulevard part of development requirement or just to make a
nice picture.
City of Kitchener: There are no plans to install a landscape boulevard at this time. Tree
street planting will be required adjacent to this property.
Q: Is there a process that would seek other arborists opinions than just the one noted re: the state
of the trees
City of Kitchener: Urban design, parks operations and forestry staff (comprised of
landscape architects and arborists) will review and provide comments on city owned trees
within the Iron Horse Trail and City-owned rights of way. Trees on site will be reviewed by
Urban design staff in consultation with forestry staff as required.
Q: The high rises just south of Gage Street already make a wind tunnel for walkers on the iron
horse trail. why would this be any better?
Applicant: A preliminary Pedestrian Wind Assessment report was completed as part of the
submission of the complete application for the property. The Study models and assesses
safety and comfort impacts from the proposed building. The Study demonstrated there
are no unacceptable impacts on Belmont sidewalks, the Iron Horse Trail, Gildner Green
or the surrounding area.
47
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 1
16-Mar - 1:00pm - 2:00pm
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Size of Building
Size of Building.
Like everyone else, my main concern is the height of the proposed building and how it will
contrast with the rest of Belmont Village.
Height of the building (high density) in an area that has enough of this already.
Iron Horse Trail
Access to Iron Horse Trail.
As you can for sure understand, it was a bit nerve wracking to hear the developer boasting
about how important the building would be for improving Iron Horse Trail (what does a trail
have to do with a 13 storey building?) and how nice it would look like (with pictures that
only showed the building up to floor 6!). As a scientist, I thought these two logical flaws
really frustrating and disingenuous and would love to hear some more logical arguments
in a more personal meeting.
Iron Horse Trail crossing at Glasgow is an accident waiting to happen with many trucks
passing & Tim Hortons drive-thru. Assuming more people with be using the Trail, will this
be addressed?
The Village
If this building gets approved, will this be the open door for future development?
How does Belmont Village look in 10 or 20 years?
character of the village as well as the impact of that many people with no place to park.
What does the Planning Division anticipate the impact of this development will be in
triggering future development along Belmont Avenue? In the coming years does the
Planning Division envision high-rises moving up the street and increased pressure from
developers to change the zoning on the west side of Belmont Avenue?
Undermining the unique character of Belmont village.
Housing
Affordable Housing.
Issues I'd like to discuss would mostly be around affordability and unit size (is there an
opportunity to build some family-sized units here?).
Building
.?
Streetscape
Built form.
Tree replacement.
From previous meetings, I got the impression that there will be no upgrading to the
streetscapes or enrichment of the facilities in parks, that are in close proximity to this
proposed development, that are associated with this development. This is in spite of a
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
48
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
significant influx of totally new residents to the area, the substantial profit that the
developer will make on the project, and the increased tax revenue that the City will receive
from these new residents. I would appreciate a fuller explanation as to why Belmont area
residents have to accommodate the implications of this development (increased traffic /
bigger demand and wear-and-tear on public parks, sidewalks, etc.) without any attempt to
offset these with appropriate upgrades?
Shadow
Environmental affects, e.g. shadows over Gildner Green Park and houses in the
neighbourhood
Damage During Construction
Living just over a block away, I can only anticipate what impact the installation of pilings
will have upon the plasterwork in the homes of this neighbourhood. What steps will the
City take to require the developer to bear responsibility for damage to older, existing
homes that will be an inevitable result of this construction?
Discussion During the Meeting
Q: Have decisions have been made on the applications? Biggest issue is the size of the
development too high. Do not want a big tower in the neighborhood, the building cannot
support the parking, traffic concerns. Why does the developer need to go beyond the
existing by-law?
A: No decisions have been made. Kitchener Council will review the Zoning By-law
Amendment and Official Plan Amendment applications. The Planning and Strategic
Initiatives Committee meeting has not been scheduled. There will be a public meeting
(Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee) and you can review the staff report and
participate. Anyone can request an amendment to the Zoning By-law through minor
variance at the Committee of Adjustment or through a Zoning By-law Amendment
application.
Q: Did he come with an 8 Storey plan?
A: The zoning right now would allow an 8 storey building. The application has always
requested 13 stories.
Q: Is it an automatic thing?
A: The Planner will make an independent recommendation on the applications. Council can
support or refuse the application, or approve a modified version of the request.
Q: Stories and meters can mean different things. Height and built form: Impact of the building
in the Belmont. Relationship between east and west side? There might be height concerns
because it abuts the residential property. Site plan control will go with the Official Plan
Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application? Or will it go separately? Will
there be a comprehensive approach to planning or a secondary plan so we understand
the relationship between the buildings around the area.
A: The mixed-use corridor was put in place in the previous Official Plan. Belmont Avenue in
this location is an intensification area . The west side of the
street is closer to low rise residential and the east side is buffered by the commercial lands
to the west and the open space to the east. There is no secondary plan for Belmont Village
and there is no plan to undertake one. The proposal will go through a Site Plan application
based on the outcome of the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
49
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Q: If we go to 49 meters, the relationship will change dramatically. Can staff be more
cognizant of the height?
A: Mixed use buildings are more challenging to build and the main floor needs a taller interior
floor height for the commercial uses. The 50% permission is to offer a height incentive for
developers to construct mixed-use buildings. The increased height is part of the
requested applications and will be evaluated through the staff report.
Q: If it does get approved, does that mean that future development on the east side will
develop more in the future?
A: We look at every development separately. Allowing additional height here
another development can do it as well. An evaluation of additional height in this location
is important and will be documented in the staff report. The city must have 50% of all new
dwellings constructed in the built up area of Kitchener and we do not plan for substantial
growth in existing low rise neighborhoods.
Q: I feel like some points in the PowerPoint with the developer were not honest. The photos
are beautiful. The trail does not benefit from the building. Cannot have shadow study
based on one day in September only, do the whole year.
A: The renderings by the landscape architect were a creative representation. Planners and
staff look beyond the concept renderings and require detailed plans for review including
shadow analysis at different times throughout the day and key days in the year
(summer/winter solstice and fall/spring equinox). The Iron Horse Trail is an old rail corridor
and parts of the trail do not feel very safe because development was historically back
lotted to it. If the trail is more visible, it would allow more oversight from units facing the
trail. We will provide a video showing the entire day for future concepts on this property.
Q: I love the Iron Horse Trail. Does not have problem with 13 stories but would like to benefit
from other things. How can these homes be more affordable? Is there room for discussion
for 3-4 bedrooms?
A: Developer has indicated at the last meeting that they do not intend to have affordable
housing in this location. They do want to work with another affordable housing project that
is outside of this development. The City is currently working on inclusionary zoning to
require such things as you note. Council has asked the Province to have inclusionary
zoning any place city-wide, not just MTSAs (Major Transit Station Areas).
Q: I am concerned about traffic and sounds from the development.
A: There is no obligation to protect traffic noises for existing buildings. However, noise
mitigation is applied for new developments where mitigation measures will be required for
any noises that are created by the building (like HVAC)
Q: Why not? This building is already increasing shadow and noise. Not the neighborhood
that I chose.
A: As the City continues to grow, there will be traffic increases across the entire city. It is
impossible to know where the traffic noise is coming is it existing traffic, new traffic from
this development, cars passing through? There is a level of noise to be expected in a
growing city as traffic increases.
Q: Hopes the planning staff deeply understand the long-term implications of this
development. As we see the coming years, there is east side of Belmont is that going to
put pressure on planning staff for zoning requirements on the west side?
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
4:
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
A: At this time, the policy direction is to not have significant growth accommodated on the
west side of Belmont Avenue the maximum height is 4 storeys and 14 metres. The east
side will have the ability to have accommodate growth due to better buffering, and larger
and deeper lots.
Q: Feeling frightened because it is not just one building, the building will grow taller in the
future because there seems to be a consistent negotiation. Belmont Village is an
intensification area but Belmont is different than Victoria and King because it is a village
and would like to maintain the uniqueness. The tall buildings will take away the uniqueness
of this village.
A: Each intensification area has a planned scale. Ground floor retail, restaurant, and
streetscape is different as well. So, the challenge is how to accommodate the growth with
the current landscape. However, we must consider where we have already planned for
growth.
C: This building will set the tone for the village. Nice to have in the summer. Hopes that the
City Council will genuinely listen to the neighbors and our concerns. Does not want to see
a 13 storey building there.
Q: Parking? What is allowable for mixed use? These developers did not allow the
accommodated parking for this site. We want to ensure that residents have ample parking,
not just parking on the streets.
A: The by-law requires 90% of all units to have a parking space (0.9/units). They are asking
for 80%. No commercial reduction is being sought. Visitor parking can be the commercial
parking for mixed use buildings.
Q: It is not accurate to force people to have bikes.
A: Some people are in different stages in life that do not own a car and rely on other methods
of transportation.
Q: Buildings in the village should be similar, this building does not belong there. Should have
stricter guidelines.
A: Belmont Avenue W. is not identified under the Heritage Act. Heritage designations are not
a tool to stop change. Heritage designations and districts do not always prevent
development, but guide change. Designation would have to meet the criteria in the
Heritage Act.
C: If full street pictures can be shown it would be fantastic.
C: In Toronto, there are still villages, but they maintained it with low rises that have
commercial at the bottom.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
51
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 2
16-Mar - 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Height
Topics for discussion is the impact of this tall building on the village which is a unique part
of Kitchener as well as the impact of increased traffic. We already witness prior to the
Pandemic traffic backed up on Glasgow Street in the afternoon.
The main topic is the building height, and the process by which the builder can increase
the height as it pertains to the official plan.
This is because, as I read the plan, the limits are 8 stories or a max of 25m in height.
(Although according to the Zoom call the maximum height is dependent upon the height
of the individual stories. This needs clarification.) So could they go higher than 25m without
any amendments?
Then if the builder asks for an amendment, by submitting a design that includes mixed
use, that the planning department and Council finds acceptable, the builder can increase
the height up to 12 stories (but the number of metres is dependent on the total height of
the stories?)
Following that if the builder wants more height they have to ask for an additional
amendment, again with planning department acceptance and Council approval.
If the zoning permits 12 storeys as stated in the meeting and presentation, the additional
1 storey penthouse floor would not seem to be out of context for the neighbourhood.
The new proposed mid rise building has so much more community appeal to our family
compared to a 20 plus storey complex.
Laneway
At present the design plan includes a piece of property that they do not own. So obviously
the questions arise as to what happens if the C
In addition this is all mute if the builder does not have the sale of the laneway approved
by the City as the design assumes ownership of that property.
A design has been presented that needs several amendments and even a City land
purchase to proceed. It is therefore very confusing to the community as to how we proceed
in ensuring our concerns are addressed. Do we oppose the sale of the lane, to ensure
the building height is restricted to the official plan? Would the builder will have to start
over?
The loss of City property
Application
There is then the question of what exactly is the expectation of the City and the planning
department when an amendment is granted. The planning department representatives
seem to indicate that they were in favour of the builder and there was little indication that
there would be anything expected of them other than some minor design changes.
The first question for which I require clarification, is what is the order of the amendments
that will be required for the builder to proceed or is it a global approval process where all
the amendments would pass.
I would like to know why current zoning regulations should be changed
the precedent it would set would lead to further such "developments"
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
52
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Building
specifically said in the call that there were no LEED certification considerations and did
g considered.
Many buildings in the city and the Region of Waterloo have been and are presently built
for amendments that should be, in my view, a requirement.
Parking
planning department, but is confusing, considering the proposed occupants the builder
envisions. Retirees and professionals moving into this area would be spending upwards
of 3/4 to 1 million dollars . All of these individuals would likely have cars. They would have
friends and visitors that have cars. The ION is close but not close enough for car use to
oor to access transportation.
Studies have clearly indicated that retirees, particularly high income earners consider car
ownership an essential. The point is that this will inevitably increase the use of side streets
as parking lots. Even if the reduced parking spaces are achieved, the traffic patterns will
change as well as people avoid the Belmont/Glasgow intersection and there will be more
left and right turns coming off Glasgow reducing traffic flow and access. This will mean
that cars will use Avondale, Dunbar and Earl as outlets to access Union.
This happened when there was construction previously on Glasgow and traffic was
problematic both in terms of number and speed.
The impact on parking.
I'm also concerned about parking on adjacent streets, especially Earl St. as we already
have a fair bit of parking of non residents on the street.
Massing / Floor Space Ratio
The architect also states that the site has a 4 times massing. Then goes on to state that
means 164 units and then bases all further design changes on this premise, 164
residential units. Does that mean that the builder can build anything as long as it does not
exceed 4 times the area of the site?
residential units, his reply was that then the adaptations they had presented regarding the
setbacks, connectedness to the trail etc., could not be facilitated. In addition, that if they
cannot purchase the lane way then these features would not be included in their design (
even if they are granted the mixed use additional height)"
We are not opposed to adding needed residential space, but this proposal is not the way
to do it.
Shadow
Shadow Impact, This building does not fit the Belmont Village, Wind issues. Parking
shortage, Excessive height of the building compared to surrounding area. Being a
neighbour within 120M can I protest or stop this construction form happening?
Character
The size (and character) of the proposed building would destroy the character of Belmont
Village
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
53
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
The proposed building will dwarf the rest of the village and destroy its character. Three
stories would be fine (like the building just to the north of Dettmer). Perhaps slightly more
than 3 would be acceptable, but 12 or 13 stories is way out of line for Belmont village!
Converting a former tire and vehicle service outlet to a vibrant mix use commercial and
the street scape.
I am a strong advocate for intensification and for reducing urban sprawl and so appreciate
the mix of needs you are needing to address. Belmont Village was a truly mixed use village
when I moved into the community 19 years ago and is one of the reasons I choose to buy
in this community. It has been disappointing to see so many of the core businesses leave,
such as the bank, Ontario Service Centre, etc. I dearly hope we can maintain the sense
of a village in Belmont rather than a condo strip and would like to know how we can protect
the village from such an outcome.
The plan to add restaurants, cafes, and potential food outlets will add such value and
opportunity to the immediate neighbourhood. The added businesses will provide more
options for local residents, and the design gives a more community feel for gathering and
socializing.
Iron Horse Trail
The harm to the Trail
Nor should we be selling Belmont Lane to the developer or allowing them to tear down
trees along the Iron Horse Trail.
Zehr Group's argument about "access to Iron Horse Trail" is completely disingenuous! We
use the trail all the time and the current access is more than adequate. From the Dettmer
site it's only a few feet to either Glasgow or to the ramp in the Rexall parking lot. (We see
people with walkers and wheel chairs on this ramp.) A superfluous new "access point"
would just take away more trees.
The forward thinking and concept of a pedestrian area at the rear of the property with
direct connection to the iron horse trail in conjunction with the redevelopment of the site,
is a true benefit to the immediate and outlying neighbourhoods
Tearing down even more trees is the last thing KW needs! Nor does our neighbourhood
need the pressure on parking space.
Official Plan / By-law Amendment
We are also unclear where the City's new master Plan came from.
We don't remember being consulted. Why can't it be modified?
For example why should a height limitation of 8 stories be expandable to 12??
- at least to some extent
- -term vision for the Belmont
Village area.
Is the zoning of other property along Belmont in the village such that we could have a
string of high rise condominiums along the street in the future and therefore are we setting
a precedent for high condo units?
I'm curious about the rationale behind the original zoning of 8 stories.
Timelines
I would be interested in the time lines of the balance of the process and when construction
could begin.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
54
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Units
I'm concerned about the need for more affordable, mixed housing, including family units
in the Region versus so many higher end single or couple condos units in the downtown
core.
Ownership
I attended one of the information sessions. I thought I heard that the developer has also
purchased other property on the street.
Wind Impacts
I heard the planner stating that there would not be a wind tunnel created by the condo
unit. When you walk between Vincenzo's and the new high rise condos near ,
the wind tunnel is significant so I need more reassurance that we would not be creating
one near a walking trail that is used be so many people.
Community Garden
There appears to be a community garden in the park on the other side of the Iron Horse
Trail from the proposed unit. What would be the impact on that garden?
Shadows
I made a significant financial investment in raised bed vegetable gardens this past
summer. I wondered if it might be possible to get an approximate idea of how much shade
I could expect from such a high condo on my property at 10 Earl St. Four to five hours is
generally not optimum for vegetables so I would like to plan accordingly.
Discussion During the Meeting
Q: When will a recording will be made available of this session?
A: Small group meetings will not be recorded. We are taking notes.
C: Overview of project building can be 25 m in height according to current zoning
o When project was presented, no indication of Belmont Lane being purchased
o 4x coverage based on lot, assuming ownership of Belmont Lane
o Developer assumed purchase of lot
o Massing does person who owns property have right to put 4 x size on lot, zoning
bylaw allows 4x coverage
o How are they moving forward without having purchased lane?
o City of Kitchener has not yet committed to selling lane, elective representatives get
to decide on sale of lane
Q: Will planning committee make recommendation that the City sell the lane? The concept
depends on is. Will you recommend sale?
A: We have not made a recommendation yet. Consideration of the Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment applications and the sale of the lane will be presented in
the same staff report at the same time.
C: Developers looked at a map, found empty space and are developing neighbourhood gem,
eyes filled with dollar signs. City planners should think of needs of community, needs are
livability, City has plans to intensify, understand need for more residential space, plan
.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
55
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
C: This will set precedent if the City sells property and development allowed to proceed,
others will want similar developments in the City, fear wall of high rises along Belmont.
C: Important pieces where are we and what can we change? Can architect accomplish
to get 163 units
A: Official Plan (OP) is the highest level City document for how we grow until 2031.
The OP allows for these lands that if you have mixed use building, you can have height of
25 metres and 8 storeys, but if you do a mixed use building in an Urban Corridor you can
do up to 50% more height this would allow 12 storeys and 37.5m without an Official Plan
Amendment. The Zoning By-law allows up to 8 storeys or 25 m. Any additional height
requires a Zoning By-law Amendment. For design details, the developer will need to go
through a site plan approval process, regardless of height. Toronto has completed an
avenue study, and has identified area for growth and has height limitations in other areas.
Kitchenercorridors and in nodes, as well as downtown and
MTSAs. These areas are planned to accommodate growth to maintain large areas of low
density residential area. That means that we can expect to see larger taller development
C: There is confusion on heights proposed 49m. Felt like neighbours were being dazzled
with trees hiding building, 5m back but drawing shows trees, sidewalk and patio but that
C: more value to community
A: Typically, conceptual drawings are used to show elements of development but Planning
staff have a wide range of expertise to review detailed plans, approvals are not based on
conceptual drawings.
C: We know that Belmont is commercial on ground floor, livable, walkable with patios,
interaction with street
Q: Is 5m back from street part of the plan?
A: The revised site plan posted to Sharefile shows approximately a 5 metre setback from
Belmont.
C: Desire to have walkable feeling, is there a way to have density and growth, what does that
look like? Do we lower interior ceilings?
Q: Parking number of issues
Vor parking needs.
Usually Earl Street is packed, parking will only be used 50% will lead to lots of parking on
cause visibility problems.
A: Usual parking demand must be met on site. Special events like Bestival and other events
lead to peak parking demand where street parking is needed.
C: There was an article in Record about development near Victoria Park 12 Storeys,
withdrawn and now doing low-rise?
A: Planning staff are aware that a development proposal going to Council later in the spring
that has been revised from a tower design to stacked townhouses.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
56
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
C: Parking assume retirees coming in and they will walk 3 blocks, great concept and may
not be possible.
C: Parking on street is common.
C: The architect was asked about LEED and developers said no LEED, tons of developers
using LEED initiatives. Developer just looking to maximize number of units to maximize
profits. If you want to make change, institute building with LEED initiatives, blend in with
community, not focus on profits.
C: . Too much shadow
for a village in the city.
C: Disagree with findings from traffic report. Glasgow full of traffic, not sure roads can handle
flow.
C: Shadow effects on Earl and Iron Horse Trail 4-5 hours /day of sun will be plenty but
residents will be upset for decrease in sun.
C: 8 storeys may make sense. Height storeys have 12 foot ceilings, 49m is equivalent to
16 storeys
Q: Will planning enforce regulations in metres and not storeys?
A: The Zoning By-law is written in storeys and metres, any amending bylaw or updated bylaw
stated in storeys and metres. The zoning regulation is written as a maximum, so both
storeys and metres are regulated.
Q: If you do mixed use, you can apply for Zoning By-law Amendment to ask for an extra 50%
in height?
A: We need to look at planned function and how it is integrated. In Kitchener we require
podium (bottom part) and tower (upper part) for a building, with stepbacks. Ground floor
residential uses are not permitted here.
C: Powerful to provide people with information in this type of platform, ask that we consider
trying to plan conversations around the next buildings, can we get ahead of that and have
conversation around larger vision in regards to executing master plan things you wish
you knew ahead of time, building seems to be in isolation, no logical fit for this building
yet.
Q: Want to know are there criteria that justify original 25 metres plan?
A: 25 metres comes from new bylaw regulations, used to be 24 metres. General residential
floor height is around 3 m, which allows 7 or 8 storeys within 24 metres.
Q: Were any shadows or parking issues brought up in original OP plan discussion?
A: Wider buildings can cast bigger shadows. Typically for shadows, taller skinnier buildings
are preferred even though they cast longer shadow, because they pass over faster.
C: If you state this area has certain character, can we suggest future development has lower
building height meet in the middle, lower height, developers still profit. Or offer incentives
to build lower.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
57
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
A: The City does not have a program that exists like this. The City used to have financial
incentive programs downtown but they are largely completed now. There have been
recent changes to the Planning Act with respect to bonusing, a tool we used before to
offer density increases as an incentive.
C:
community at large, unless City can do a deal. Not a lot of confidence that C
this deal, City will trade land for something else.
C: There will be i
handle more traffic. Traffic is biggest concern development of that size is a problem.
Q: ents set if development is approved.
.
A: The City looks at every application based on its merits, but whatever gets approved the
next developer will look to see what was approved here. If we look into height increase,
we need to determine what justifies extra height, to set the expectation.
C:
realistic Glasgow is crowded in rush hour traffic.
A: We know that more people and more development can bring more traffic. As the City
grows, and traffic gets heavier, we plan to have other viable options. That is why you are
seeing investment in LRT, improvements on Iron Horse Trail. If the City is walkable, bike
friendly, and has improved public transit, this will appeal to more people who are not as
interested in cars.
C: .
Not looking for commercial parking .
Will people have 2 cars/unit? More concerned about door dash drivers cutting corners and
speeding.
C: As business owner the prospect more people in village offset some concerns.
o As far as door dash types, most people doing take-out are local, % of door dash is
minimal
o More people would be great, more people coming without cars would be great
o Understand concern for neighbourhood
o Lots of people looking to downsize, great location
o If 164 more peopl-win for restaurant and residents
o Concerned about parking, closed off other portion of Belmont, did a great job
bringing people to community, talked about doing it at our end, objected to that,
already little parking in village,
o Hot yoga and others are parking on our end
A: The City does not build housing; we rely on home-builders to build housing. And we also
plan to certain maintain low rise areas in city, like your neighbourhoods. Generally, if there
are more people surrounding commercial, it becomes more viable.
C: Impact on Iron Horse Trail going back to presentation, they had no conception of
neighbourhood, they said they were going to improve trail and provide access developer
must not have known there is already access nearby. Believe developer will make trail
worse by cutting down trees. Trail has become wind tunnel when you walk past buildings,
if new building is approved, it will get worse.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
58
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
A: The Iron Horse Trail used to be rail corridor
no eyes on trails may feel unsafe for some people, some people feel more comfortable
with more access points. Seeing building from trail helps create safer environment.
Q: What about hydro easement behind building?
A: KW the lands. An easement may be required. Initial estimate is that it
is too expensive to bury hydro.
Q: Shouldn't they have 163 parking spaces? Not 130
A: visitor can also be commercial
parking.
C: Business owners more people obviously make for better business, but mixed use
food joints, has been drastic change in business profile. Look at red building that has
had multiple clients. Grocery store idea is interesting but changes height requirements.
C: There are spaces in Belmont Village available for rent (business) already.
A: Economic Development works with business partners even before COVID, some of the
most vibrant businesses, like restaurants and small businesses, are the most vulnerable
to change.
Q: of 8 storeys what do we do
now?
Q: Is developer taking concerns seriously? Are they willing to compromise?
A: The City is hoping to use these discussions to further dialogue, need more conversations
to set expectations. Council will make the final decision on the applications. The Developer
still requires lane sale which is also a decision of Council. The City has identified this as
intensification area and it is likely there will be some increase over 25 metres for a mixed-
use building.
C: Councilor Chapman involved with Mill St. Project. What helped was people presenting at
Planning and Strategic Initiatives meeting. Encouraged public to speak at meeting. For
Mill Street, the developer is making changes before Council meeting.
C: If you have parking on both sides of the side streets-way traffic.
A: Traffic study not required for this development. A parking analysis was done and looked
at 200 surface parking spaces, used data from other studies including Belmont Trio.
C: We can ask City not to sell the lane? I
development. Can the City refuse this sale?
A: Consideration of the lane purchase would be part of same public meeting. We hear
community concerns about height. Need to find balance. If Cthe
Developer can only build on lot that they have, but can still do 8 storeys and ask for
increase in height through the current applications.
C: Rexall out.
C: Need a plan for Belmont.
A: There are currently no plans for a Secondary Plan for Belmont Village.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
59
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 3
16-Mar - 6:30pm - 7:30pm
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Height
As the architect discussed during the meeting last week, storey heights have been
increasing in recent decades. So I feel discussing planning permission around storey is
meaningless. It's the height in meters that matters.
The proposed 49 m height versus the permitted 36 m for mixed use is what concerns me.
49 m is out of scale with the rest of Belmont Village.
My concern is strictly related to the additional height. I understand that the mixed use
designation allows for the additional increase is height/storeys, but I do not support that
for this development.
The topic I am focused on is the height of the building being over 8 storeys and its
overbearing scale on the street.
Residents do not see the benefit to the community of allowing the additional height, so
why are we considering it?
height of the building (storeys vs metres high)
Would like a little more engagement on the total height vs. number of floors.
The primary one has to do with the height of the proposed building. If I understand it
correctly, the Official plan allows for a building of 8 stories and 25 metres in height. If the
building is classified as ""mixed use"", this can change to 12 stories and 37.5 metres
without an amendment to the official plan. The proposed building is 13 stories and 49
metres. I feel that the application to go from 37.5 metres to 49 metres should be rejected
by Council.
Official Plan / Zoning
Years ago, when the mixed-use re-zoning exercise was conducted for this node/corridor
(and I think 7 others?), I expressed my concerns with this additional-height-clause at that
time. I recall that study was a comprehensive review from a planning, servicing, traffic,
environmental, etc. perspective that allowed for the recommended 8 storeys. I cannot find
it but I actually recall for this sub-node/corridor for Belmont Village North(?) the
recommended scaling of the buildings was less than that (4 storeys) but I cannot find the
study that m-
remembering. My concern is that planning recommendations that resulted from the
comprehensive study that took place a few years ago should be maintained, and I do not
think it is appropriate to approve the addition height through what is perceived as a
loophole. I do not think the additional seven storeys and additional height are consistent
with the surrounding community. I am concerned of the precedent that the approval of this
development would set, spurring every redevelopment project in the Belmont Village area
to expect a 50% increase in height because that will not be congruent with the intent of
the node and corridor study, in manner that is not consistent with adjacent and surrounding
land uses.
Specifically,
planning and transit focused policies can be achieved by adhering to the strict zoning
allowance of 8 storeys.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
5:
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
redevelopment provides a mixed use buildi
and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable policies within
The definition of an Urban Corridor that the City of Kitchener has assigned to Belmont Ave
and what that means for future development.
The official plan allows a building of 25 meters. If the building has mixed use, the building
can be 37.5 meters (an increase of 12.5 meters or a 50% increase of height from the
allowed height in the official plan). By allowing a building of 49 meters to be approved
there will be an increase of 24 meters from the official plan (which is an increase of 96%).
I view this as an extreme example of incrementalism that will establish a poor precedent
for future development along Belmont Ave.
Parking
The number of parking spaces per unit and the strain it will cause on the surrounding
streets
Trees
Removal of trees to accommodate the building
This thought process of improving The Village and Iron Horse trail even extended to the
fact that the trees that are to be removed are of non-native species and therefore the birds
and bees and other natural beings would benefit by these being replaced by more
appropriate trees and vegetation. I believe that this site will be completely clear cut of any
trees to facilitate the construction and then these trees will be replaced by saplings which
will take 10-20 years to mature. Artist renderings, such as the ones used in the
presentation, do not accurately reflect reality.
Precedent
Would granting developer exception for height lead to a precedence for other developers
requesting increased height. a a city-wide zoning/planning
update rather than on a single case by case situation.
If this amendment is approved, I see no reason why other developers will not see this as
a precedent and make similar or even more aggressive applications in the future. We will
then see the adage of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" being commonplace.
Character
Would like to provide my support for projects such as these to appear on Belmont
(specifically the mixed use portion), provided they are not exasperating a culture that
prioritizes cars.
Construction Traffic
Construction traffic and building overflow onto Belmont and surrounding streets
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
61
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Development Concept
The obligation of both the City and the developer to produce a project as shown in the
drawings (in other words at the end of the project I want to see the public spaces and
lovely trees, etc shown in the proposal and not a parking lot).
Lastly, there is the concept of design and architecture, which I admit is subjective. When
I listened to the representatives of the planners and architects of this project on the last
Zoom meeting call, it seemed clear to me that they expressed the opinion that Belmont
Village consisted of a number architecturally insignificant buildings and what they were
proposing to build would be such an improvement that one might be of the impression that
they were "saving" the village. I feel in fact that the proposed condo does not add anything
of architectural significance or style to the area. It is really no different to what we have
become accustomed to in the new builds in Kitchener or Waterloo.
Iron Horse Trail
Would like to give some thoughts on the connection of the Iron Horse Trail to the front or
side of the new building, things such as safety crossing a laneway, ways to prioritize
pedestrians over cars (a pedestrian crossing of some sorts perhaps).
Master Plan
I also feel that the City of Kitchener should develop a master plan for Belmont Village.
Belmont Village is marketed and promoted as a ""village"" by the area's BIA. There is no
question that Belmont Village has evolved over the years, going from being anchored by
three service stations/garages along with a Beer store and Zehrs grocery store to a rather
quaint mix of owner operated retail stores and restaurants and other commercial
businesses. This type of commerce is unique and has been successful both for the
business owners and patrons. It is very rare to see a business site vacant for very long.
The same cannot be said for other commercial retail areas in Kitchener or Waterloo ( ie.
the Shops at Waterloo Square, Bauer Lofts or downtown Kitchener and Uptown Waterloo).
New development is expensive and in order to make a profit the landlords need to charge
higher rents which then trickle down to the more local, established and independent
business owners. This is what has happened on King Street in Uptown Waterloo .
I am not against development and intensification. I know that it is mandated by the
province and it makes good sense on many levels, however, I do not feel that the only
way to intensify is by building large towers. It just happens to be the easiest way. I feel
that there is no reason why the City Councillors and planners can't take time and make
decisions that will ensure that our city and region becomes known for being a leader in
thoughtful human scale intensification. There are many examples of this and I know that
as planners you study and research them. The ones that I have experienced such as Cook
St. Village in Victoria, Wortley Village in London and Hess Street Village in Hamilton have
created successful and enviable environments . Why not give it a try here?
Discussion During the Meeting
Q: Biggest concern is population growth. How to leverage this community for the needs of
the community to make things more affordable. Negotiating that the density is meeting the
need.
A: We plan for affordability as best as we can but market forces have been very strong.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
62
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Q: What is the benefit of density?
A: Providing additional housing supply. The City is working on inclusionary zoning that can
be implemented in MTSAs.
C: The 1-2 bedroom does not meet the need of affordable housing in the city.
Q: Out of the comments received to date, what percentage are supportive and opposed of
the proposal? Prior to CRoZBy, would this be supported?
A: Comments are largely opposing, but we need to consider the planned function of the area
as well as the future residents of the City as well. In 2012, Mixed Use Corridors (MU zones)
were approved. The 2014 Official Pan implemented added the policy for a 50% increase
in building height without an Official Plan Amendment. With either zoning by-law, a Zoning
By-law Amendment is required for the requested height.
Q: Central Neighbourhood Urban Design Guidelines Respect existing built form and other
notions, it seems that 660 Belmont is contradicting. How could they ask for this?
A: Anyone can request to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. More than one section
of the Urban Design Manual guidelines and policies apply, and we use all applicable
sections that to apply the development applications.
C: Concerned about size of structure. Comparing to City of Toronto not imposing the
streetscape.
C: Concerned about the height of the building. Are other properties that will be developed?
Once the precedent is established, will there be a corridor of buildings. Can the City put a
plan together? Aesthetic concerns with glass and concrete. The City should be concerned
with the design.
A: Detailed design review occurs at the site planning stage. The City can control the design
and the massing of the buildings.
Q: Opposed to the structure. New resident. Enjoys the Belmont village. 8 Storeys might seem
to bring customers and people in the village which is great. But 13 stories seem
unnecessary and have high ceilings. Concerns with the parking spaces since it went down.
A 80% of the units are proposed to have
Residential visitor and commercial parking are shared. Commercial parking is required at
a rate of 1/35m2 GFA.
Q: It should be difficult to not have a vehicle in Kitchener area. Although developer is selling
about the LRT, it does not seem to be realistic. Would be disappointed to see the parking
on the side of the street.
A: we have seen development applications
downtown with little parking.
Q: Height concerns. When you look at meters, 36m vs. 49m, it is a huge gap.
A: Yes, it is understood that the request of 49m is close to double the 25m allowable.
Q: Shadows on the trail. It will ice over.
A: Development on the trail does allow more eyes on the trail. The corridor was formerly a
rail corridor and there is a lot of back lotting now. People are intimidated to use it at night.
Having development that faces the trail, and now that it is well lit, it would be safer. The
Iron Horse Trail is one of the trails that is maintained in the winter by the City.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
63
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
C: In support of the building, would like to downsize. Live in the area (7 min away) with high
rise, like the design and location. Love the idea of tying Belmont with iron horse trail.
Convenient for him and his wife. Seen growth in the area, had parking concerns before
but not anymore. Only during construction. Good walking distance and locations to nice
shops. Had same concerns as other neighbors in the meeting but changed mind.
Q: Concern about the 50% increase that was not known with 2012 mixed-use zoning. Support
the 8 storey corridor study mixed use. The 50% does not fit in this case. Does not fit with
other types of studies such as pedestrian transportation.
A: The 50% increase is permitted by the OP but still requires a Zoning By-law Amendment.
Staff are evaluating a number of factors in order to prepare a recommendation to Council.
Q: Enjoys the neighborhood, does not want to live in the shadow. Concerns with shadow
study and traffic studies. What benefits do neighbours receive? Shadows? Empty store
fronts? Traffic and congestion? What are the benefits? How do developers live up with the
promises made?
A: Construction may require the temporary closure of a lane. We think about growth as
across the city, not just one part. We have to accommodate 50% all new residential units
in existing parts of the city (the Built-Up Area). We have development pressures across
the city, and most neighbourhoods are experiencing growth and change.
Q: Character of the neighborhood and maintaining it. Does the City have statistics of the
number of owners or renters?
A: The City does not have a residential licensing by-law. We can check with economic
development for any general questions. fully know how many owners rent their
units. The City plans for dwelling units, regardless of tenure.
C: A lot of people are looking for smaller condos with one bedroom and can walk. That is why
his wife and him are pleased to see the development. Whether you have 8 or 12 stories,
you will still have a development. There is benefit in the community, the restaurant
provided there.
C: Agree with the concerns with height and shadows, will there be enough parking for the
uses?
Q: Concerns with the height difference between 12 stories compared to the ceiling height
of each floor. (13m difference) Has the City considered apartments wanting these heights
or is it a standard now? Or do we need to know that moving forward for other apartments.
A: The 50% compromise is to get mixed-used buildings and get commercial on the ground
floor. The trend is to have a higher ceiling height and it is also necessary for commercial
uses.
Q: Should the City decrease a storey if the ceilings are higher? How to purchase the laneway
and prioritize the pedestrians while promoting safety. How can we promote the connection
to the trail? How to make it safe for families walking through there and prioritize it?
A: Best way to address safety for a pedestrian pathway is to have a design that makes a
vehicle slow down to cross it.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
64
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
C: Secondary plan needed for Belmont to guide development there seems to not have clear
guidelines for developers (we are reacting). Frustrated with lack of affordability in the city
what would you be willing to give up giving back to the community?
A: Inclusionary zoning is only allowed to be regulated around MTSAs. Council has requested
that the Province allow inclusionary zoning in all areas of the city. Currently waiting to hear
back if the province will consider a change to the inclusionary zoning framework.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
65
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 4
17-Mar - 9:30am - 10:30am
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Units
The unit mix
Bicycle Parking
The bike parking
Other TDM measures.
Traffic
High residential density on the property with the associated traffic, parking
Shadows
Building height/shadows and skyline.
Building shadow - Feb 25th meeting only showed September with stated minor impact.
However, December's impact is significant. Any sunlight in winter is precious for wellbeing.
According to the shadow analysis early morning shadow is about double for proposed 13
storey building than for an 8 storey building (over 500 m versus less than 300 m). As it
happens our house all the way over on Union Blvd would be in that 500 m shadow. I like
living where I can see a sunrise and do not want to feel I am behind a prison wall.
Public Spaces
Increased use of local green space.
Plaza - North corner public space? If controlled by Condo Corporation then could be
restricted and made private.
Summer Building Sketches - Images only show summer conditions. Ok for California
however we have at least 6 months of wintry type weather. Building needs to be better
designed for our climate as a year round destination. Such as on Belmont side of building
have permanent extended covering/awning for easy enclosure in non-summer weather.
Suggest the this is better location than cold north side breezeway.
Rear Plaza Noise - As this area is raised above adjoining trail and park there will be
minimal muffling of plaza event noise thereby disrupting Mount Hope neighbourhood and
leading to noise complaint enforcement issues. Public events should be limited to facing
along Belmont as has successfully occurred with noise muffled by buildings and directed
skyward rather than into neighbourhoods.
Building Height
I would like to know what is the criteria that establishes whether the City can allow the
height of this building to be increased by 50% (from 8 floors to 12 floors per 15.D.4.23),
and to allow height of the street level floor to exceed 4.5m and the subsequent floors to
exceed 3m to increase overall building height from 25m to 36m (allowed if City permission
granted) to 49m (currently requested by the developer).
Laneway
Potentially privatizing the of the public laneway blocking public access and privatizing the
currently public parking area and allowing the property to sustain higher density (floor
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
66
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
area) than would be possible on the site at its current size. Sale of the adjacent laneway
will have similar impacts on the adjacent site.
Rather than going private could become truly public space and added to adjoining park
green space which is lacking in Mount Hope/Westmount neighbourhoods.
Uses
If day care was located as suggested in commercial space then this plaza would be
required for its fenced outdoor play area.
Building Design
Placement of plaza on north side of building rather than south side seems too much like
Kitchener market building where outdoor market area was poorly placed on north side and
as a result not used as intended.
Floor Space Raito
Building Footprint - Process called, I believe, building massing has achieved no significant
increase in green space to justify extra height. External parking lot is large and appears
according to a drawing to be located above part of the underground garage. Instead the
building should use all of building's footprint to reduce building back to 8 storeys.
Building Design
Loading Dock - Poor location for commercial use especially as suggested by developer at
meeting for grocery store. Delivery transport trucks will have difficulty accessing and block
parking. Such vehicles would be required to back in from Belmont creating dangerous
situations for pedestrians and motorists.
height/bulk/shade, by-law adherence, parking, traffic, Belmont Lane sale, precedent
creation, preservation of Belmont Village character, spot amendment beneficiary
Precedent
My primary concern is the precedent set for future proposals along Belmont (particularly
the west side) if this development is approved as currently proposed.
Benefits to Community
IF the City allows these changes, what compensation do Kitchener ratepayers, and the
residents of the neighbourhood most impacted by the development get in return?
Discussion During the Meeting
Q: Concerns about the status of the laneway. Has there been a formal request from the
developer? Io
A: It is under consideration now. City has not decided on these applications and Council will
decide whether to sell the lane or not.
to buy the lane.
Q: What if they put another application next year just as big for their other building? Can they
do that if they buy the whole lane?
A: They own the yellow 2 storey building to the north as well. They are requesting to buy the
lane all the way to Claremont Avenue. We do not have an application for the adjacent
lands at this time.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
67
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Q: Concerns of loading dock safety. Loading dock is located where the transport trucks is
backing in. Fundamental flaw for the laneway.
A: The City will use software to determine if turning templates will work at the site planning
stage. No site plan application has been received.
Q: What about a having a one way lane.
A: We will look into this and bring this idea to Transportation.
Q: Congestion at Belmont near Tim Hortons, has that been looked at for truck turning?
A: Typically look at that lane during site plan stage. There is no traffic study required. A traffic
study is only required if there are more than 100 trips expected in the AM and PM peak
hour.
Q: What is the purpose of the two temporary parking spots?
A: Loading, carshare, deliveries, Uber Eats etc.
Q: Car share spot can reduce need for vehicle. Will it have it in the future?
A: The City supports car share- spaces that are publicly accessible. The developer would
need to have an agreement with a car share provider.
Q: Some spaces look like they have two car garages. They should not have two bundling
garages.
A: The spaces have to meet the zoning requirements to be counted as a parking spot.
Q: Why is this not an LEED building?
A: There are green initiatives that are brought forward in each update to the Ontario Building
Code. although City policies encourage and support sustainability, they do not require a
certain type of certification. LEED certification has been historically incentivized through
bonusing meaning a larger building.
Q: Parking it's over the top of the parking garage extend to laneway? Are they justifying
putting the height without greenspace? Buildings should not build with external parking
lots, should be internal parking. Too much pavement. This is not California.
A: In Kitchener, we try to have underground parking. We want to have active uses at the
There are some groundwater concerns. We
to infiltrate road salts on the ground in the winter.
C: Bike parking should have more bike parking if parking is reduced.
Q: Side streets with Belmont, has the City considered banning the parking on the street? If
there is parking on both sides of the street, there will be congestion. Will the City widen
the roads?
A: Historically roads were designed for quick movement in a car. In urban areas we are
looking to find ways to support all modes of transportation like bike lanes and wider
sidewalks. There are currently no plans by the City to add additional lanes.
C: Generally, this building is huge and too dense without greenspace.
C: Need to look at the big picture and we need housing for newcomers.
C: They are not affordable housing units.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
68
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Q: The two applications that are filed - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law
Amendment. Are those the only applications filed?
A Yes
Q: What are they doing for stormwater drainage requirements? Is that posted on the
Sharefile?
A: Stormwater information can be found in the Functional Servicing Report on Sharefile.
C: The developer only wants singles and seniors here, does not seem to be good for families
and not align with this area. Suggestion is to set aside 10% or so for families or affordable
housing (3-4 units).
C: This development is adding to the gentrification. Needs a building to be diverse.
A: Larger units can be part of the ask back to the developer, but they will be the most
expensive units. We have to accommodate growth for our city in order to preserve certain
parts of the city like low rise residential neighbourhoods. We will have to find a balance.
Q: There will be changes in the east side then there will be in the west side as well.
want a canyon.
A: There is growth potential for the east side under the current zoning. The west side can
have 14 metres or 4 storeys already. King Street between University and Columbia has
been described as having a canyon effect. There is no street parking, limited street trees,
and the buildings do not have podiums or increased setbacks for the tower. Kitchener
requires setbacks and stepbacks and podium/tower designs that would not be a flat wall
all the way up the face of a building.
C: Shadow In December there is a significant shadow. The height is excessive.
Q: Was LRT taken into consideration? Belmont is not close enough for people to get
groceries. They are not walkable. Grocery store is not definite in the building.
A: There are density incentives to have grocery stores in Downtown and in certain corridors.
We plan so that each neighbourhood has access to a grocery store as part of a complete
community.
Q: Where will the snow be stored?
A: A snow storage area is required to show on site plan.
Q: How far long along is the application in the approval process?
A: The applications have been accepted and circulated but have not been approved.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
69
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 5
17-Mar
12:00pm - 1:00pm
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Height
My major concern is the height of the building. I worry that if the building is approved for
the increased height that is being proposed it takes away from the village feel and set a
precedent for future tall buildings
Height of building
Why is there a consideration for a building of more than the approved 8 stories? What is
the rationale for this?
The height of the proposed building.
I am mostly interested in the test the developer needs to meet in order to be granted
permission to go from 8 to 12 stories. And then what is the test to meet in order to be
granted the 13th story.
Units
size of units
affordable housing
retail space/rents
No family units (i.e. units with 3 or 4 bedrooms) when studies show there is a dearth of
family units in Kitchener.
Traffic/Parking
traffic spillover
Traffic impacts
Parking impacts
Inadequate parking. Yes, the area is well serviced for walking and biking but most people
will still own a car whether they use it much or not.
Traffic congestion in the residential neighbourhoods. Already Gildner and York streets
have had an increase in traffic from the Catalyst development.
Application
further clarification about the zoning process and what exceptions are being asked for and
what has already been granted
Public Space / Iron Horse Trail
a clearer statement about the implications such a development might have on public
spaces such as the Iron Horse Trail.
a clearer statement about the implications such a development might have on public
spaces such as the Iron Horse Trail.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
6:
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Mitigation
mitigation strategies to protect the surrounding neighbourhoods from the downsides of the
development
Development Concept
I can see a lot of exciting development possibilities for that lot and Belmont Village. Many
of us agree that what happened in the village last summer was exciting and showed what
it might become. But this development lacks imagination - architecturally it sounds very
generic, it will not lead to a diverse community, it is going to be placing demands on street
parking which will mean we won't be able to experiment again with expanded patios that
would support all businesses, and research seems to indicate that it won't be solving the
actual housing issues that the region is facing (i.e. affordable housing for families).
The lack of any green space around the building. i.e. The building has too big a footprint
for the lot size.
No recognition that we are in a climate emergency and need to build smarter. No attempt
to implement any LEED green building strategies.
Laneway
The sale of Belmont Lane property. does not benefit the common good, only the
developer.
Official Plan / Urban Design Manual
The proposed building does not follow the official plan for Upper Belmont as set out in the
City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Why spend our tax money hiring planners and
then not bother to listen to them or the community? This results in very disengaged
citizens. Don't bother fighting City Hall because the developers always get their way.
Character
The proposed building does not fit in with the unique character of Belmont Village. Many
large cities value and protect their Urban Villages. e.g. Parkdale in Toronto."
Precedent
If the by-laws are amended for this building it sets a precedent for creating a canyon of
concrete all along Upper Belmont.
Shadows
Also interested in what is considered reasonable in terms of casting shadows in a
residential neighbourhood.
Decision
Is there anyone independent going to be sitting on the decision committees?
Discussion During the Meeting
Q: Parking is main concern and street traffic with young kids, side streets were busy in
summer when other streets were closed. Feel a lot of issues could be fixed if development
allowed more parking, can developers dig deeper?
A: Underground parking is very expensive, especially if the garage is below the water table
as significant de-watering would be needed. The City does not want an oversupply of
parking and has added new parking maximums in the by-law. The Zoning Bylaw requires
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
71
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
0.9 spaces/unit. The parking report notes the use of street parking through neighbourhood
and are requesting reduction to 0.8 spaces per unit (80% of units will have a parking
space).
C: V.
Q: Would on-street parking be too high for community events? Public transportation in the
area is still about 1km away, will we see improved public transit access?
A: and as ridership levels increase,
service improves. Need to find a balance; we are watching trends of car ownership and
proximity to public transit The developer is
requesting a change to bylaw to allow 0.8 from 0.9 spaces per unit. Developer is only
requesting change of residential parking rate for their project. The By-law allows a shared
parking arrangement, commercial parking can also be residential overnight parking or
visitor parking. The commercial parking may not be used during special events if they are
held on site.
Q: If there is public benefit, we will need an easement to protect public space; will the City
put this in place?
A: Yes, if the proposal includes publicly accessible space, like the Mews, an easement will
be required as a condition of site plan approval. 345 King Street downtown in an example
of a Mews that allows the public to walk through the site between King Street and the lane.
Q: Presentation is frustrating, felt developers were disingenuous; drawings removing trees
now 11 storeys, close to 12 storeys but still have high ceilings
difference.
A: The City will not rely on renderings, will only review detailed drawings and proposals,
ensure plans have any approved details.
Q: City needs to review?
A: Everything received to date in posted online. The site plan approval process is not a public
process like the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications,
however, should someone request the opportunity to review the submission material for a
site plan, we would provide it. A site plan application has not been submitted to date.
Q: What tests do they run to determine if the additional floor is acceptable? Who decides?
A: The decision will be made by Council (11 members of Council will vote), Planning staff
make recommendations with considerations for city-wide planning objectives in mind as
well as site specific. The Official Plan says mixed use can go 50% more without amending
OP, 12 storeys or 37.5 metres. The policy speaks to mixed-use building, but there will be
regard as what aspects are included in the proposal like affordable housing, public spaces,
building setbacks for landscape, how it meets City design objectives.
Q: The City has not permitted sale of lane; neighbourhood will be negatively affected; why
are we spending time reviewing application but lane has not been sold?
A: Council will consider the sale of the land as part of the overall consideration of the
application. This section of the lane is currently owned by the City but only benefitting two
properties, which are both owned by the Zehr Group.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
72
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
C: Function of lane allows building to come out to the street to make community more
walkable; need to protect public access.
C: Developer kept referring to condos down the street which have a dark feeling.
C: Can see Sunlife building (19 storeys); this development is close in height to that. This is
out of character.
A: There are areas in the city that are planned to accommodate growth, which means a
change to what is on the ground today. We grow downtown, in nodes and corridors, and
in MTSAs to preserve the community and green areas, which cover more than ½ the City.
The City needs to accommodate 50% of all new growth, in these limited areas (the Built-
Up Area). We are in a housing crisis and increasing housing supply is important.
Q: Would developer consider increasing footprint and reduce height? Could Tim Hortons go
into new building?
A: I am not familiar with any discussions with Tim Hortons but if more lands was purchased,
that would increase lot area and building floor area.
Q: There appears to be misinformation in local paper, talking about 18 storeys.
A: The City ensures our information on website is accurate and direct people there.
C: Tim Hortons is not best pedestrian use, crossing drive-thru.
C: Setting precedent in Belmont Village. The developer owns next door as well. Also, another
developer in the area buying more property.
Q: Can we have a study of Belmont future development? Secondary Plan?
A: The City has no current plans to complete a Secondary Plan for this area.
Q: How do you test proposals for shadow impacts?
A: We review shadow with a 3D massing model. The City can create a video showing
shadows for the future concepts. City standards are to focus on equinoxes, because in
the summer everything is usually fine, and when looking in winter usually everything fails.
Q: Can they only build 8 storeys according by bylaw, OP allows up to 12?
A: Yes, but they are requesting permissions beyond the 50% policy requested height is
49m and 13 storeys (equivalent to 16 storey)
Q: Shadow will cover one of the few parks in the area starting at 3pm popular park with
gardens, accessible garden. Can the shadow study show a 25m building?
A: The Developer has submitted that in Urban Design Brief available online to view (last 30
pages). Different colours show shadows for as of right and requested height.
C: Area zoned for 8 storeys, great for business, want to maintain unique character of
Belmont.
C:
C: Build 8 storeys right up to street level to get more units
C: City and Councillors should be aware, City of Waterloo allowed high rises before they had
a plan in place, we should put plan in place.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
73
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
C: developer not in business of affordable housing.
A: The developer did say they are not planning affordable housing at this location but want
to work with an affordable housing provider elsewhere.
C: We want to know those details. How much.
C: Need bigger units for range of family sizes, majority of housing is directed to students or
1 or 2 bedroom for smaller families; area labelled urban corridor, not needing as much
parking, would be nice to see component that satisfies affordable housing and access to
public transportation. Developer not catering to population that will rely on public transit,
A: Inclusionary zoning can only be done in Major Transit Station areas now, can state unit
types and affordability criteria. The developer is asking City to change bylaw, so we can
talk about a development may bring to the community, like affordable housing, green
initiatives within reason.
Q: If City declines proposal, can the developer appeal and Local Planning Appeals Tribunal
make a different decision?
A: Yes, the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal can revisit that decision if the applications are
appealed.
C: Recently in news, Mill St. cancelled development. Voices can be heard. Developer
cancelled/altered plans, not the City.
Q: In favour of 13 storey building. Used to dealing with city life. We need a plan for Belmont.
What do the residents want? Affordable housing, larger units? Find way to advocate for
those things.
A: The City is in a housing crisis, the average single detached home increase significantly in
the last year. The larger units will be the most expensive and may be out of a young
. Many condo fees are based on square footage, and sales prices are
based on square footage.
Q: That is the timeline on the decision?
A: We continue to have discussions and negotiations, not scheduled yet for a formal public
meeting yet. When that occurs, we will notify everyone in writing.
Q: Wind issues, constructing wall of building that will redirect wind, wind will be very strong
around that building, snow drifts?
A: We evaluate wind with high level study now, based on location of building, where are
problematic areas? Downside of sharp corners of buildings at detailed design stage,
look at different things that can slow down wind.
Q: Does the developer need permission to construct within 120m of neighbours?
A: The applicants are circulated within 120m and advertised in newspapers and with property
signs.
Q: Also ok with 12 storey development, but will have negative impact on Iron Horse Trail with
shade and wind, can users of trail provide feedback?
A: in regard to local development, only with changes to trail
itself. However, anyone can comment on a development application information is
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
74
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
available on the website for those interested. We post a sign on the property to help advise
people in the community.
C: ign of trail and sharp corners, love the new changes
.
C: -
ng.
Q: 3 hour parking to be put on side streets, would be a pain for single lane
driveways.
A: There is a city wide 3 hour limit but only enforced when we receive complaints.
Q: City spends so much money on design manuals and studies this is opposite of design
manual for Belmont Village, stick to the plan and it would be more accepted.
A: Planning is always evolving and we keep updating policies and guidelines. Part A of
design manual is new part and applied to new development applications.
C: Mill Street plan was modified, thanks to people speaking up, as this moves forward, please
have your voice heard, present to Council to inform other Councillors of your thoughts.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
75
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 6
18-Mar - 12:30pm - 1:30pm
____________________________________________________________________________
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Height
height of building
Height of building beyond 25 metres
consider what is the right amount of density to support a sustainable village culture
(including the right building height and skyline development)
Precedent
Setting a precedent for tall buildings on Belmont
diverse housing and employment - live and work and shop in the community
Character
changing character of Belmont Village.
connected to natural environment and rest of the City's culture
Laneway
Sale of Belmont Lane
Building Design
No LEED certification
what services and infrastructure are being planned to support this strategy (stricter
parking, traffic, bike / pedestrian safety, increased natural environment connection via
trees, parks, lighting, etc.)
Ownership
I attended one of the information sessions. I thought I heard that the developer has also
purchased other property on the street.
Official Plan / Zoning
Is the zoning of other property along Belmont in the village such that we could have a
string of high rise condominiums along the street in the future and therefore are we setting
a precedent for high condo units?
I'm curious about the rationale behind the original zoning of 8 stories.
Units
I'm concerned about the need for more affordable, mixed housing, including family units
in the Region versus so many higher end single or couple condos units in the downtown
core.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
76
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Parking
I'm also concerned about parking on adjacent streets, especially Earl St. as we already
have a fair bit of parking of non-residents on the street.
reduced impact of cars in the neighborhood - become more increasingly pedestrian &
Transit oriented
Wind
I heard the planner stating that there would not be a wind tunnel created by the condo
unit. When you walk between Vincenzo's and the new high rise condos near ,
the wind tunnel is significant so I need more reassurance that we would not be creating
one near a walking trail that is used be so many people.
Community Garden
There appears to be a community garden in the park on the other side of the Iron Horse
Trail from the proposed unit. What would be the impact on that garden?
Shadows
I made a significant financial investment in raised bed vegetable gardens this past
summer. I wondered if it might be possible to get an approximate idea of how much shade
I could expect from such a high condo on my property at 10 Earl St. Four to five hours is
generally not optimum for vegetables so I would like to plan accordingly.
Discussion During the Meeting
C: This development has ramifications. Bylaws have to be met, why are we even doing this?
A: The City must consider and process all applications.
C: The proposed height doubles what is allowed, neighbours were not aware; first we find
out the highest structure on avenue is 2 storeys, then we hear the bylaw says it can go to
25m, now we hear that it can go even higher developer being aggressive with proposal
requests. The Outdoor amenities are only for those who can afford them. Parking spaces
need to be purchased. Reduced parking request is not ok. Only see one accessible
parking space in underground. Have they submitted any plans that adhere to current
bylaws?
A: No, the City has not received any plans that adhere to the permitted building height.
Q: The developer is basing entire project on their belief that they will be able to put this 49m
high structure with less parking than what is required but it is based on the purchase of
Belmont l.
A: Developer must do all studies that show this development can be supported; show us
what development will look like; they invest in all the studies and reports without knowing
if they will get approval of their Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment
applications. No decisions have been made. Staff recommendations are often different
from what is being requested need to find balance. It is not uncommon to see a number
of revisions throughout the process.
C: This is a unique community in the city. Developers requesting more than they need so
they have room to cut back. If they get their approval, Belmont Village will have many
condo buildings in 15 years. Will lose all benefits that village has, events, etc.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
77
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
C: .
C: Long-term residents are very attached to area walkability, feeling of belonging, great for
mental health and businesses all will be lost if this goes through remotely closely to what
is being requested.
C: Developer seems persistent to get what he wants.
C: Previously asked about laneway to be purchased City has perfectly legal obligation to
not sell to developer. Must keep reasonable height limit
Q: Seems novice to sell laneway without thoughtful consideration to future opportunities,
Urban Design Manual recognizes Belmont Village as unique corridor, separates Upper
and Lower Belmont - Upper Belmont allows up to 5 storeys, manual seems like it is being
dismissed.
A: The Urban Design Manual was prepared when the mixed use corridors were first
Part A is the newest section and
include a section on Nodes and Corridors and MTSAs. The Mixed Use Corridors Design
Brief was first established before LRT, but we did have a central transit corridor. The
Council decision on the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment can be
appealed to Local Planning Appeals Tribunal but the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal
cannot require the City to sell land. The idea of a lane, allowing parking in back, can still
be achieved with private ownership. Zehr group owns this and the property to the north
and is the owner landowner benefiting from this section of the lane.
Q: The plan for current request shows multiple uses for laneway, having events and parking,
loading, seems a bit much.
A: The plans prepared by the Landscape Architect are creative. If we accept community
space, like the Mews as part of the project, public access needs to be protected with an
easement.
Q: Character of Belmont is that we visit and chat on streets, not at the back of a building or
alleyway. The mews is mostly private, seating will be available for customers, not for
general public, takes away from Belmont village, nothing out front for neighbourhood.
A: Public space would have to be public not a space you need to be a paying customer for.
If there will be public seating, it should be provided in areas that have public access the
same way the City has installed public benches and seats for public use.
Q: Has any attempt been made to make Belmont village a heritage designation?
A: No. The City has not identified Belmont Village as a Cultural heritage Landscape. Belmont
Village today is low rise, but it is identified as intensification corridor, so change is
expected.
C: Makes sense that we need to allow change, but amount of intensification needs to be
reviewed; 6 or 8 storey is fine, 12/13 storey is not fine
C: Can still have vibrant community in shorter building, most people were not aware of 8
storeys, .
C: No one has said we are completely opposed to change.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
78
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
C: Strongly support intensification, chose home based on diversity of services, unique feel.
C: Parking is significant on Earl, dilemma is that we have single driveways, park second car
.
C: Concerned about shadow, negative effects on gardens at Gildner Green.
C: If we approve this, can we reject further developments in the future?
A: Each application is considered on its own merits. But if additional height is allowed here,
the positive aspects of the building would need to be clearly outlined to set the standard if
other applications are received.
C: Not designed with LEED or green initiatives, not affordable housing, not a building that
warrants
C:
anything that suggested housing would be affordable, if you own house and sell house,
not looking for affordable housing, want to draw other people in, not thought for
affordability or accessibility, no mention of more than 2 bedroom unit which would allow
family gatherings; 1 or 2 bedroom, expensive units, meets minimum accessibility
requirements, lacks sensitivity to the community of seniors who still want to live here.
C: The parking design speaks to lack of accessibility, decreased surface parking and
eliminated 3 barrier-free spaces, and only 1 underground accessible spot. Seniors will
need vehicles and will need accessible parking. Why is developer not being asked to
provide sufficient parking, should not rely on on-street parking to meet their parking
demands? Developer is looking for grocery store use, commercial units with staff,
suppliers, customers, visitors, overnight guests, where will everyone park?
A: Commercial parking must be accessible and should appear to be for public use. You
have locking garage doors. The general public may not feel they can use underground
parking, if that is proposed there would need to be signage or used by commercial staff.
The commercial parking rate is 1/35 square metres. The site will also need to be the
minimum accessible parking requirements. When land use and density is decided, the
developer will need to go through detailed site plan process showing how all criteria is
met.
Q: What are temp parking spaces?
A: Loading, ride share, Uber Eats, Skip the Dishes, etc.
Q: What could continue to be built if this is permitted? Can City infrastructure support this
growth?
A: Yes, the existing services can accommodate this growth.
Q: Lack of green space, shadows, top of list is Belmont Village walkability, friendly feel,
range of businesses that support ranges of families. Rent is increasing, new builds at tall
heights, we will lose village feel that is not found anywhere else in Region, not opposed to
development, support LRT and intensification; have we met provincial standards on
growth?
A: Intensification targets can change with every update to Provincial policy must meet
intensification target each year. We have met targets in recent years easily with all the
projects downtown, but we will likely need to meet 50% of all new dwelling units moving
forward.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
79
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Q: There are problems with investors buying units and renting out.
A: The housing market is complicated part of challenge is that people want to live here,
there are jobs, and people like it here. Creating demand.
C: Don't want Belmont Avenue to become a road of concrete buildings the reason why we
were drawn to the area is how it is today. Feel sad about changes we are faced with.
A: We know we have to grow. Growth is change, many areas in the city had to change
all that much. We are looking to grow within our neighbourhoods, but in order to preserve
built form that people like about Kitchener and living in a mid-sized City, we are limited to
C: Belmont Village to be an experiment, we want stable plans, recognize need
for affordable housing, must be change and better connection with parks, trails, culture,
find uniqueness in village. Why has a formal study of Belmont Village never been
completed? Felt dismissed immediately
have staff; when will we look at what Belmont Village
A: There are no plan to do secondary plan or master plan or secondary plan for this area.
We are doing a lot of engagement on these applications to understand the interests of the
community. We also look at direction from City policies, planned function and
intensification areas.
Q: ?
A: There are no plans to do a study, if we had a plan to do a study, there are tools we could
look at, but likely would not impact this application.
Q: Ho
parties?
A: We are building a list of anyone who has requested or provided comments, including 120m
buffer.
Q: Belmont Village is a destination place, is anything going to be put in radio or newspapers?
A: Notice of the public meeting will be in the Record newspaper, and there is a sign on site.
Q: We have 4 neighbourhood associations, can you circulate them?
A: Yes. The initial circulation included the neighbourhood association for the subject property,
typically there is only one where an proposal is located.
C: Councillor Johnston will continue to update her own social media with notices.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
7:
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 7
18-Mar - 2:00pm - 3:00pm
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Parking
Parking
Height
Building height and impact to neighbourhood
Precedent
What this means for future developments in Belmont Village
Impacts
environmental and societal impacts of this proposed project.
Impact on neighbourhood and future developments
former gas station site for sale
Traffic
Did not see separate study, busy intersection already with Tim's drive through and
Catalyst truck traffic
Discussion During the Meeting
Q: Greenspace arborist did a study 5-6 years ago. Did a review of the tree canopy and
concerns that the trees are not doing well. How is developer proposing to increase the
canopy and greenspace?
A: The City has lost some tree inventory from the Emerald Ash Borer and has been actively
managing that situation. The City will require compensative plantings for any tree
removed. Our standards require new trees as well.
Q: Urban design in central neighborhoods? If the proposed building is too high, it can be
negative for future development.
A: The Urban Design Manual (UDM) is a guideline with flexibility for achieving the design
objectives, and there are several sections that apply like Nodes and Corridors.
Q: Is there encouragement given to developer for the proposal based on the size and height.
Is the lane being sold because of Charlie West?
A: It is e lane. I am not familiar with any arrangement linking this
site to Charlie West.
Q: What are the benefits to residents?
A: There are big picture positive aspects to the city. Intensification growing and increasing
density and not using farmland. This would add new uses and new housing options to the
community. Developer will also have to pay development charges for growth related items
which are used to pay for schools, sewers, etc. Commercial landscape is changing and
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
81
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
adding commercial will attract more people, and adding more people will support the
planned and existing commercial uses.
Q: Can residents have property tax reduction? Will property value be lower?
A: There is no tax reduction program. It is unclear how this proposal could affect property
value given its location.
Q: What is the rationale for 15 storeys from the developer? Concern that is setting the
precedence for other nearby properties. The east side: all the owners have been pushed
out.
A: To confirm, the proposal is for 13 stories not 15.
Q: Traffic concerns. Can developers make something that is suitable for the area? Belmont
is beautiful with little shops. Would be happy if they can have family housing. Harmony
with the community.
A: Larger sized units have been discussed in other group meetings and will be brought back
to the developer for consideration.
Q: Parking concerns due to the height and no parking study.
A: The developer completed a parking assessment. A parking reduction is being sought for
-law applies parking standard geographically. For a
residential building with a MIX zone the requirement is 0.9 spaces per unit. The request is
for 0.8 spaces/unit. No reduction for commercial parking is being sought.
Q: With commercial parking, is it the grocery store at the base of the area? Vincenzo's spend
1.5 mil to compensate for parking on Caroline St.
A: Parking on site is important detail and the developer is not at the detailed design stage
now. Commercial must be publicly accessible usually surface level. The City looks to
limiting parking to encourage change. We do not want to see excessive parking. We want
to also promote opportunities for public transportation and active modes like walking and
cycling.
Q: East side would be challenging for parking. Concerns will increase the problem (Earl).
Neighbours should not be policing the parking. The developer is responsible for mitigating
those problems. Costing the neighbourhood a lot of inconvenience.
A: We have parking requirement to meet the typical demand. There will be times were
demand exceeds supply like public events (festivals etc).
Q: Belmont Village has wide streetscape. This area vs other parts of the city and towns.
(Waterloo and Guelph) the area is unique and complimentary. This structure will dwarf the
other existing buildings. The village will be gone if this goes up.
A: It is part of the vision for the growth of the city. To preserve stable neighborhoods in the
City, intensification areas have been identified.
Q: Has the developer wanted to purchase the laneway? What is the length of the site that
they want to buy? Relocation of the hydro lines what will happen to the services under
there? What are the criteria for declaring land surplus? Would Tim Horto
A: Yes, the applicant indicated they want to buy the laneway. All the way to Claremont. There
are two options for services; relocate the services in public road, or protect access with an
easement. City will have to sell at fair market value. The City
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
82
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
looks at purchase requests to determine if they are feasible. The City has not received a
request from Ti
Q: What will it do to the characteristics of Belmont and future development? There will be
opportunities for developers to use this as precedent for other areas.
A: Planners will look at each application individually. Will look at the total development
proposal before making a recommendation.
C: When you walk down the Iron Horse Trail, turbulence will be significant high rises will
create it. Developer should consider this impact. Shadow impact. It will be colder. Position
of the building to the trail will have an impact.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
83
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 8
18-Mar - 6:30pm - 7:30pm
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Height
Zoning, better understanding of limit - 8 storey and height, and ability to increase by 50%
within zoning type.
the height issue, especially adhering to the restriction of 25m in the Official Plan. If that
were to happen, I'd have no problem with the development. I'm in favour of in-filling, but
49m is just too high!
I would like to discuss the height of the building as my main concern and the future of
possible more tall building being added to the landscape.
Wind Study
Wind and shade assessments, basis and comparison to other developments, like "Trio on
Belmont"
Trees
Tree Management
Removal and replacement of tree
Developers discussion of ecological plant/trees on trial seems beyond their scope
Official Plan / Zoning By-law
Zoning / City Plan for Belmont Village
Traffic / Parking
Traffic / Parking
Future Development
Future Development
Discussion During the Meeting
Q: Frustrating at end of previous meetings as it seemed very one-sided. Main concern is
height, building at 8 storeys is already much larger than rest of village, floors taller than
normal, request of building height much larger than surrounding,
A: Policies all mixed use buildings to be an additional 50% in height to allow for higher ceilings
on ground floor. However, the additional height is not a guarantee still requires an approval
from Council on the Zoning By-law amendment.
C: Developers spoke about making space at the base which increased height. If we need to
have a condo, which is out of character, keep it as small as possible. The perks that
developers spoke of are not guaranteed. Commercial use will benefit community.
C: Concerned about going from 8 storeys, amendments to allow 50%, plus more. Developers
speaking of benefits to community, community would prefer to trade those benefits back
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
84
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
in order to keep height lower. Development benefit would be protected to ensure it remains
in place forever
A: As long as they have commercial on first floor, a mixed use building, the policies in the OP
allows for 50% increase in height.
Q: The development is 13 floors, not just regular height, all storeys with higher ceilings.
Developers have bought a lot of land in this area, worried about this development setting
precedent.
A: Planning staff review every application based on its own merit. The overall development
proposal will be considered when considering additional height, and any future application
would be subject to the same review.
Q: How can they ask for more than 37m? Why would City consider this?
A: The City needs to process every application we receive. Just because an application is
made, that will be approved as requested.
Q: Need to also regulate minimum number of storeys (King Street for example). Try to
regulate what is happening in building. Is that in OP?
A: Plan is fairly new but provincial legislation has changed numerous times
since 2014 and most changes have allowed greater densities, we will eventually need to
update our Official Plan to match new provincial policies. We will continue to need to find
additional areas for growth. Every 5 years, the City reviews the Official Plan. Region is
updating the Regional Official Plan now, next year we will need to update our Official Plan
to implement any required changes. The current Provincial Policy Statement says that
50% of all new units need to be in built-up areas. The Region will further regulate in the
Regional Official Plan.
Q: Where does growth go?
A: The City has stable low rise areas that people enjoy in mid-sized cities. To preserve these
areas, we need to focus on MTSAs, nodes & corridors, and downtown for growth.
Q: Can condo ceilings have regular height ceilings?
A: Yes, we can consider requesting that from developer. We will want to better understand
that request from the developer.
Q: Why would the developer What
if the City says no to the applications?
A: There are no guarantees in approval process, developers make assumptions, write
applications based on assumptions. If the decision is no, the final decision could end in
the hands of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal if an appeal is filed.
Q: Mixed use is areas where we want to encourage more than one use, is that the only
permitted use in this area?
A: Yes, residential uses are not permitted on the ground floor so the building must be mixed-
use.
Q: If application is approved, can they start building right away?
A: A number of approval processes are in place including site plan approval which can take
6-8 months.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
85
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Q: Parking is not 1:1, worse with more floors in the building, parking is already an issue, lost
parking when streets were redone, businesses requesting parking to be 1-hour for
customers; demographic of condo is not just directed to bike riders.
A: The parking requirement is per unit, 90% of units require parking, they are requesting
80%. If parking is over supplied, you could end up with vacant parking, or you can
undersupply and encourage other behaviours. We are seeing an increase in people who
to live right downtown, some giving up cars because they want
Q: The Urban Design Briefvision for Belmont Village is 2-5 storey condos. There are 2
sections of Belmont Village, upper section with village feel, lower section for intensification.
A: The mixed use corridor zoning considered the Urban Design Brief, but it was approved for
up to 8 storeys. Nodes and Corridors, Major Transit Station Areas, and downtown are
locations planned for higher density. Permissions on west side are lower than east side
because the properties on the east side are larger and are better buffered.
Q: Belmont Lane divides parcel in 2, developer assumed city will sell him the land, if he
.
A: The sale of the lane way provides opportunity to negotiate with developer, decision of sale
lies with Council. The existing parcel, without the lane, still has same zoning 4x
coverage, up to 8 storeys, and the Official Plan policy to allow 50% more height with
Zoning By-law Amendment would be applicable. It would not necessarily be the end of
the proposal.
Q: This lane allows loading, parking, etc to happen behind building, keep that away from
street.
A: If the lane; the intent can be maintained and all functions can continue and
the City would not have to maintain the lane.
Q: Negotiating and benefits what might sway you to support it?
A: Have to consider all feedback from community and as well as overall planning objectives.
What makes great urban places? Streetscapes, wider sidewalks, larger street setbacks,
features like the mews, increased access to trail (increase trail safety). Affordable housing
is so important. We have relied on bonusing before to allow taller buildings with more
density if they included affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning looks at different size
units and affordable units and the City is developing those standards.
Q: How long does it take to implement inclusionary zoning? Can we speed that up?
A: There are a lot of parameters to consider if affordable housing is required for a
development, we need to understand how to best integrate with our policies and
regulations. The City has little control on house prices and rent costs. We know it continues
to increase, demand for people to live here driving up prices, will more units lower the
price? Need a lot of supply.
Q: Where is inclusionary zoning?
A: The Provincial direction is for Major Transit Station Areas only as of now.
Q: Can you still offer similar perks but cap building height at 8 storeys? Is this out of the
question as he would be giving up profits?
A: I cannot answer for developer if they can build 8 storeys.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
86
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Q: What kind of mixed use would be of value to community that would warrant the extra 50%?
A: We do not want residential on ground floor in Belmont Village, commercial is hard right
now, especially during the pandemic. Eaton Lofts has seen many commercial vacancies.
.
Q: What is timing on this? How is it moving forward?
A: Next step finish these meetings, consolidate comments, discuss comments with
developers. A formal public meeting will be held at Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee which when scheduled, I will inform everyone with a letter/email.
Q: Is there anything more we can do to express our hopes of what the decision might be? Is
this enough?
A: You are welcome to write in or speak at public meetings but first we will respond to
comments. Planning staff will advise of you of future meetings by email and mail.
Q: The Neighbourhood Planning Reviews project recommends a mixed use with reduced
height, lowering heights? Is that a proposal the City will make?
A: The Neighbourhood Planning Reviews looks at Central Neighbourhoods, just east of Iron
Horse Trail, part of station area planning which is being done to plan how we will meet
minimum densities, coming up with new secondary plans to plan for change, mixed
category to provide transition from abutting residential to other uses.
Q: Are they looking to remove trees along trails? Will trees be replaced?
A: If the trees are City owned, they will need permission to remove them, and will need to
replace them. Replacement depending on species, need to look at purpose of trees
(holding slopes), want trees to protect trail. Landscape architects can suggest species
(slow growth and faster growth).
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
87
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 9
19-Mar - 8:00am - 9:00am
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Development Concept
look, design/style, building materials, energy sources, landscape proposed for 660
Belmont
Character
chain stores, cafes or independent (small local) ones
Public Space
space for cultural events
Height
Building height - on what basis does "Building Massing" conclude the building should be
49m high. The architect couldn't explain this.
Bicycle Parking
possibilities for bike traffic and parking
Belmont Village Mater Plan
broader future vision of Belmont Village
Traffic
The 'traffic calming' measures over the past few years in THIS IDENTICAL AREA of our
neighbourhood have been substantial. This development will increase traffic in the
immediate neighbourhood and it will be significant at specific times of each day. Why is
the City & Regions transportation/traffic department not opposed to the size of this
proposed development? Or have they not had any input into this? If not, will they?
I would like to discuss the impact of the development on neighborhood parking and traffic.
Belmont is a dead end street ending in a residential community. It does not "want" more
traffic. The traffic report was done before Belmont was reduced to 2 lanes from 4 for
bicycles
Precedent
Will this development by the Zehr Group, if permitted, then set the precedent for the height
of future developments along that side of Belmont? Especially since the same developer
owns the immediate adjacent stretch of property, extending to the next corner across from
Rexall Pharmacy. I.e. will the City/Region subsequently assume this will be an acceptable
height for all future developments along that same side of Belmont? \[we understand and
have been informed the opposite side (backing onto Earl St) has a height limit of 4 storeys\]
In fact, we believe a height of 8 storeys is plenty for this declared 'urban corridor' since it
is NOT at the same level of urban design as King St or other main streets are.
We do not wish to see the Zehr Group 'back away' from this development as we believe
they will do an outstanding job with it. And it is much more attractive to have a local
developer involved on Belmont, than someone from out of the city, or worse, out of the
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
88
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
province. But we would like to see some 'give' on the height OR assurance, in writing, the
height of 13 storeys will NOT be permitted anywhere else along Belmont.
Notification
Other than those who attended the Feb. 25 meeting, how is word of these discussion/focus
groups being advertised to neighbourhood residents? Since the initial communication last
August 2020 was only sent by the city to residents within 120m of 660 Belmont, which is
VERY FEW residents, thus virtually no one knew of this, unless we were customers of
Dettmer Tirecraft. That is how many of us learned of the proposed development. We
believe it is only fair for all residents who walk to Belmont and use the business services
within Belmont Village, should be notified. That would mean notifying residents from
William to Park to Gage to Westmount
Parking
Reduced parking for an upper income facility is a contradiction in logic. Two working adults
probably need 2 cars.
Grocery Store - the "secret" and after the fact idea of having a grocery store on the lower
level comes after the results of the 2018 traffic report and requests for reduced parking.
Laneway
sale of the laneway property, size of the building and the negative impacts on neighbouring
properties.
Official Plan / Zoning By-law
Zoning - how is it that what we decided in 2012 and 2016, in the zoning, is no longer
relevant
Public Spaces
Green space - the aerial diagram of the property shows all concrete and asphalt with 2 or
3 potted treetops
Development Concept
Climate Crisis - Kitchener has declared "Climate Change" to be a crisis. Seriously, how is
this monstrous building helping reduce GHG by 8% by 2026. They didn't even consider
LEED criteria.
Affordable Housing
This is a rich person's housing. We have an affordable housing crisis. This increases the
problem; it changes the income distribution in the Belmont community. It is condo
purchasing, not rental housing.
Shadow
Parks and back yards are places people go to enjoy the sunshine and /or garden. How is
reducing an already expected and used natural resource for individual profit in the public
interest and contributing to community.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
89
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Discussion During the Meeting
Q: Setting precedent of Belmont area. Are there plans that are limiting the other
developments in the neighborhood?
A: Each application will be looked at individually. The additional height will be looked at for
example, positive aspects that it brings to the community.
Q: Storey count is not a full measure of height. It is double the amount that is allowed (height).
Residents who live on the East side there are shadows that will be affected.
A: Yes, the application is for 5 more stories, but also double the height.
C: Community gardens: important to others, need to consider.
Q: How high is it compared to the neighbourhood tall buildings.
A: Buildings around 50 metres in height are Queen/Margaret and the tallest tower at Belmont
Trio.
Q: Supporter of condo development. The City is in demand for supply in terms of housing.
What is the goal in the number of condo in the area? How do you get there? Is it aligned
with that?
A: The City is not a home builder, so we rely on private sector to provide. We allow multiple
dwellings at different scales across City. DTK tower it is 39 stories because the zoning
allows high growth for residential. We identify Belmont on the east side because it is
identified for growth. All together these different growth areas will accommodate growth in
the built up area existing neighbourhoods.
Q: It is hard to visualize this building. Neighbour has a software tool. A building near-by was
47 metres, just a couple metres shorter than the Belmont. The land is comparable because
the land is lower.
A: Queen Margaret building and the tallest Belmont Trio building are similar.
C: Soft impact, there are mature trees.
C:
C: 49m building is double the permitted height, too big to compliment streetscape. Concern
about selling the laneway, for traffic entering and exiting the site. Inflating the height and
mass of building. Insufficient parking. Site needs to be self-sufficient. Removal of 10
existing trees. Overwhelming negative reaction in the neighbourhood and majority of
people are opposed.
Q: There are errors in the Zoning By-law. Gildner Green has R-5 zoning, same as rest of the
neighbourhood.
A: The Neighbourhood Planning Reviews project for the broader neighbourhood will update
the zoning to reflect the park use.
Q: How long has the R-5 been in place.
A: It was put in place with the Secondary Plans, likely in the R-5 is a low density
zone.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
8:
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
Q: Errors in the By-law use of the properties. Are they mis-zoned? Please
explain what you mean by Neighbourhood Planning Reviews project? Expected timeline?
Request that the City strictly enforce 85-1 and remove the height allowance that threatens
Belmont Village.
A: The Neighbourhood Planning Reviews project is the larger planning project to update
secondary plans and zoning for Major Transit Station Areas. The project website will show
proposed land use designations and policies and zoning. The project is on hold until the
Regional Official Plan review is completed showing new Major Transit Station Area
boundaries.
Q: Significant area concern is traffic. Have transportation staff reviewed? Are they in favor?
Opposed? Input?
A: Transportation staff have reviewed the application and report. There was not a
requirement for a Traffic Impact Study, would have to exceed 100 trips in AM/PM hour.
Since the developer has asked for parking reduction, they submitted a parking justification
report.
Q: Since they changed the crosswalks, there are issues (speeding, passing the light). Given
the pre-Major concerns on the
development for the traffic. But in favor of the development.
A: The City also conducts ongoing traffic calming and traffic monitoring programs for existing
conditions.
Q: Climate change concerns Kitchener 5 major projects. City wants to reduce GHG, so how
is that implemented here? This development is not proposing LEED certification.
A: The UDM has a micro-climate guidelines that will have to be addressed at the site planning
stage. We require sustainability statements at site plan. We cannot require LEED.
Q: Sewer system along the Iron Horse Trail. Present proposal, will the underground parking
be an issue with the sewers? Will the drainage become an issue?
A: management criteria will come into effect with any new
development. Clean roof top water is often infiltrated into the ground. Clean water may be
infiltrated. Dirty water will be in the sewer system. There
servicing issues. The geotechnical evaluations showed that only the elevator pit will be
below water table.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
91
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
660 Belmont Avenue West OPA/ZBA Small Groups Discussions
Session 10
19-Mar - 3:30pm 4:30pm
Issues Identified through RSVP Response to Meeting
Building Height
Building Height and Compatibility with the Neighbourhood & previous Design Plans
the height of this development,
Traffic
Traffic & Parking
Public Spaces
Sunlight/Shadow
Specifically, do your models that look at flows and number of spaces depend on returning
back to normal (i.e.: no extended patios in Belmont?). I thought the provision to allow for
more space for patios was a huge success this past summer and I think it's something the
City should allow the business to do indefinitely.
Planning Process
Overall direction of City Development & Process used to make development decisions.
the development process,
lack of accountability on the part of the City planning department.
Parking
The key thing I'd like to talk more about is the parking + the extended patios for COVID.
Discussion During the Meeting
C: Impact on gardeners due to shadows. Proposed driveway entrance is directly in front of
Rock St., If I wanted to avoid the light at Belmont and Glasgow, I would use Rock St.,
traffic will be added, and parking as well on residential streets. Parking on site is not
handled well. With COVID, we closed streets and had vibrant community, would love to
see that more in the future, extended patios, remove parking; that idea will remove parking
that developers are relying on.
C: Concern with development is just too physically big for this site, in terms of impact on rest
of village; 13 storeys is too high, base footprint is too large. In Toronto lots of fun small
stores, other retail moved in and pushed interesting shops out; fear that happening in
Belmont Village.
C: City is representing neighbours living in development areas, felt insulted at
presentation.
Q: Traffic/parking -
made that side streets will deal with parking, want to understand requirement for new
builds to provide parking; parking requirements of Commercial vs. Residential.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
92
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
A: New development requires parking on site that meets their demand. Minimum parking
requirements are set out in the Zoning By-law as minimums. Commercial parking is 1
space /35 m2 of floor area. Residential parking is calculated by the unit. In the MIX-2 zone,
requirement is 0.9 spaces/unit. The developer is asking for 0.8 spaces/unit.
Q: How will the City deal with the issue due to insufficient parking? Will neighbourhood have
to do parking policing as bylaws are complaint-based?
A: Overnight visitor is allowed to be shared with commercial. Transportation staff review if
parking reduction is appropriate and .
Q: How many stores? How much commercial parking will be provided?
A: Depends on size; roughly 30 commercial parking spaces based on the proposal. Many
parking spaces are below grade, most people may not know to park underground as a
visitor so surface spots work well for commercial and visitor.
Q: Height 13 storeys is unreasonable, can City tell us what they are thinking?
A: We have received two applications. An Official Plan Amendment to allow 49m and 13
storeys and a Zoning By-law Amendment to allow the same. The Official Plan allows
increase in height of 50%. The application is requesting 5 storeys more and almost 2 times
the height measured in metres. We need to look at planned function of the City
Structure.
Q: Urban Design should be part of review; review Upper Belmont 2-5 storeys; how will you
use these documents to guide your position?
A: Urban Design is a guideline for implementing zoning. Urban Design helped to guide the
Official Plan and new bylaw, but urban design is a guide, not a set of rules. Urban Design
Manual not part of Official Plan, it is an implementation tool but it is separate, they are
related but manual has sections we use to evaluate any development, compatibility to
determine adverse effects shadow, compatibility.
Q: Compatibility has a lot of room for interpretation. What do you look at?
A: Must look at all policies and all interests and planning consideration before making a
recommendation. Permissions exist in intensification areas that are needed to meet
growth targets. The challenge is that many lands in neighbourhoods include low rise
residential uses that are planned to remain, so we have Nodes and Corridors, MTSAs,
and downtown which are intensification areas.
Q: The pattern is the City to go along with every exception that developers ask for, only tiny
changes happen. Only Mill St. is where a developer listened to concerns.
A: Planners influence changes on almost every application through the development review
process..
Q: Why are there guidelines and planning documents when developer can make request for
exemption? Assuming we are not upholding our criteria.
A: We review all documents when we make recommendations. We have to think about the
people that live there today and future residents. We need more housing and the City
.
Q: How can developer make application in absence of land, reduced parking, over height
requirements, no affordable housing, no LEED in climate crisis?
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
93
Appendix B Small Group Summary Comments and Discussion Summary
A: The City addresses all applications where someone wants an exception to rules, we try to
work together to find a balance. Planning staff work to process applications and influence
changes based on comments and feedback.
C: Developer is already selling these units before decision has been made.
C: Developer owns low rise building just north of 660 Belmont, will we be back again when
he wants to demolish those to make larger buildings? This building is first step in
destruction of what we like about Belmont Village.
Q: Does the City have plans to encourage development of Tire Factory on Strange St.? It is
a huge parcel that could provide many units.
A: We can apply land use designations to allow for redevelopment opportunities through the
Neighbourhood Planning Reviews project. For example, the City introduced Official Plan
policies, zoning regulations, and incentives to encourage growth downtown. There are site
specific intensification opportunities to accommodate more density.
C: City should en
effects to existing neighbourhoods.
Q: What are next steps?
A: We will prepare a fulsome response to comments, will write summary of all meetings with
answers to all questions that were brought up.
Q: Decision timeline?
A: No meeting scheduled yet, need to see how things go with discussions. Members of
Council will hear application recommendation at public meeting, you can speak at that
meeting, will inform all of that meeting, hoping in about 3-4 months,
Q: What are Councillors feeling? Will they support. They need to represent to us. Will you
oppose?
A: Councillor Chapman would not support this application as it is today, hoping developer
will hear comments and adjust. Encourage you to speak as a delegation at the Planning
and Strategic Initiatives Committee; email Councillors and they will pass that to other
Councillors.
Councillor Johnston hearing many comments, know where community stands, hoping
for changes to development; looking forward to seeing staff report before deciding.
Q: What staff report?
A: Planning staff will prepare a staff report which will contain a recommendation on the
applications and will present to Council. Ultimately Council will make a decision on the
development applications at a public meeting.
ŷĻƭĻ ƓƚƷĻƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ğ ǝĻƩĬğƷźƒ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻĻƷźƓŭƭ ğƓķ ğƩĻ ğ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ƭǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ķźƭĭǒƭƭźƚƓƭͲ
źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭͲ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͲ ğƓķ ğƓƭǞĻƩƭ͵
94
Zehr
607KingSt.W.,Suite205A,Kitchener,ONN2G1C7
P: 519-576-2233 F: 519-576-0072 | ZEHRGROUP.CA
October 28, 2021
Garett Stevenson
Manager, Development Review
200 King St. W, Kitchener, ON N2G4V6
RE: 660 Belmont Ave. Kitchener Zoning bv-law amendment resubmission affordable housing
needs
Dear Mr. Stevenson,
For consideration as part of our Zoning By-law Amendment resubmission and the request to clarifyour
intent related to supporting affordable housing needs, we are confirming our support to Menno Homes
for their project on Bridgeport Road East at Lancaster Street (544 Bridgeport) in Kitchener.
On behalf of our project at 660 Belmont, we are earmarking a $250,000 direct donation to the Menno
Homes project at the time of full Site Plan Approval for the 660 Belmont project. As we understand,
the donation will contribute to the development of the second phase, the first phase having
been completed in 2021.
We are proud to assist Menno Homes with their supportive housing project that fulfils a specific need
in our City. We are also proud to state our committed support on behalf of the family for the nextfive
years.
If you require any further information or details, please do not hesitate to contact us.
CEO
Cc: Kevin Muir, GSP
Dan Driedger, Menno Homes