HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-033 - OPA-21-002-S-JVW - ZBA-21-004-S-JVW - 134 and 152 Shanley Street - 2701098 Ontario Inc.Staffeeport
IST` �; Ni,R
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 specified and illustrated on Schedule `A' and Schedule `B', be adopted, in the form
shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -2022-033 as Appendix `A', and
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.
Page 4 of 722
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.
Page 5 of 722
0.
PSE SUBJECT AREA
10
0
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
Page 6 of 722
statement building was approximately 22.0 metres from the ground to the ceiling of the 6t" floor and
approximately 25 metres from the ground to the ceiling of the mechanical penthouse. In comparison,
the proposed development includes both residential units and mechanical uses on the 8t" floor with
a height of 27.5 metres. Furthermore, the proposed building includes step backs on both the western
and northern fagade 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
to the community's vision, 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
is proposed to be an `L-shaped' building that has been oriented along both Shanley Street and Duke
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
Page 7 of 722
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
Units provided at grade (`townhouse -
Unit Design
outdoor amenity or covered
style') include covered entries (located
entries.
below balconies above) and raised
outdoor patio areas for outdoor
amenity.
Page 7 of 722
Non-residential
Not included in the proposed
The proposed Site Specific Provision
uses
zoning by-law amendment.
allows non-residential uses at grade to
Building will be
The Zoning By-law allows for non-residential
allow for flexibility for ground level
predominantly residential
uses at grade. 4.5 metre tall ground floor
commercial units in the future
Visual Barrier to
1.8 metre visual barrier (6 feet)
2.44 metre visual barrier (8 feet)
screen parking
ground level commercial units in the future.
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 Conceat Comaarison 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.
Page 8 of 722
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
metres)
of the 6t" floor and approximately 25 metres
to the ceiling of the mechanical penthouse.
In comparison, the proposed development
includes residential units and mechanical
uses on the 8t" 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.
Page 9 of 722
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
Page 10 of 722
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
Page 10 of 722
Table 4. Zoning By-law Comparison Table
Page 11 of 722
Existing Zoning
Proposed Zoning Permissions (Zoning
Permissions (Zoning
By-law 2019-051)
By-law 85-1)
Zone Category
R-6 with 128R
RES -6 (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.
• artisans' establishment, studio and
craftsman shop;
• convenience commercial;
• day care facilities;
• health offices;
• personal services;
Page 11 of 722
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
Page 12 of 722
• offices;
• restaurants/cafes;
• 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
Page 12 of 722
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 within the City's delineated built up area, and within a Major Transit
Station Area. The lands are identified as a MTSA in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's
Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for 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 policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the
Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed development
conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure
and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including
transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad
range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a
range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical,
social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents.
Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications (Appendix
`D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform 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.
Page 13 of 722
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 City's policies for a Major Transit Station
Area but also contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally friendly city.
Urban Design Policies:
The City's urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. 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 Accessibility for Ontarian's 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
Page 14 of 722
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 location of the subject lands in the context of the City's integrated transportation system supports
the proposal for transit -oriented development on the subject lands.
Policy 3.C.2.22 states that until such time as Station Area Plans are completed and this Plan is
amended accordingly, in the interim, any development application submitted within a Major Transit
Station Area will be reviewed generally in accordance with the Transit -Oriented Development
Policies included in Section 13.C.3.12
The proposed Official Plan Amendment and 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 Heritaae
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
Considerable Value and Significance. Phase 2 of the City's 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. 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 City's Official Plan contains policies with the primary objective to provide for an
appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to
satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed
Page 15 of 722
development increases the range of
contemplated to include a range of
Furthermore `townhouse -style' ground
sidewalks along Duke and Shanley
households.
Conclusion
dwelling units available in the city. The development is
unit types including, one, two and three bedroom units.
floor units will be designed to have direct access to the
street, and the range of units will appeal to a variety of
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 approved in the form shown in Appendix "A".
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.
Page 16 of 722
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.
• artisans' establishment, studio and craftsman shop;
• convenience retail;
• day care facilities;
• health offices;
• personal services;
• offices;
• restaurants/cafes; 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.
Page 17 of 722
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
designation so long as they are "complementary and serve the needs of residents, at appropriate
locations in the residential land use designations to support the development of a walkable and
complete community". Given the 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
on the subject lands due to past land uses in accordance with the Region's Threats Inventory
Database (TID). A Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be
required in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines. Until such time that the RSC
and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have been received by the Region, 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-law amendment be approved as shown in Appendix "B".
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 comments are found in Appendix "D"
of this report.
The following Reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment:
• Planning Justification and Urban Design Report
Page 18 of 722
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
may be found in Appendix `E'. A Neighbourhood Information Meeting 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
and does not fit in the neighbourhood
issues with adjacent residential properties. Townhouse -
with single detached dwellings. The
style units with covered porches are provided along
building needs to fit the
Shanley Street and Duke Street with setbacks that are
consistence with adjacent low-rise residential properties.
neighbourhood character.
Page 19 of 722
Planning Conclusions
In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and
Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 134-152 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 recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through
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.
Page 20 of 722
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
be demolished.
approved by Council in 2015. The CHL Study identifies the
neighbourhood as a Cultural Heritage Landscape of
Considerable Value and Significance. Phase 2 of the City's
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
The development will result in traffic
below, or on the low end on what is expected on a minor
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
traffic resulting in unsafe conditions
seconds). This increase is not expected to result in
for drivers and residents
roadway capacity issues for the roads in this
neighbourhood. Given the low traffic volumes currently
seen on adjacent roads.
Commercial uses, such as a pub or
The proposed zoning will permit non-residential uses at
restaurant should be permitted.
grade by requiring 4.5 metre tall ground floor units to allow
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 134-152 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 recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through
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.
Page 20 of 722
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding
the application posted to the City's website in the spring of 2021. Following the initial circulation
referenced below, an additional Courtesy Notice of the public meeting was circulated to all property
owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and
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
APPENDIX&
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
Page 21 of 722
AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
CITY OF KITCHENER
134-152 Shanley Street
Page 22 of 722
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
Page 23 of 722
AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
SECTION 1 —TITLE AND COMPONENTS
This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City of
Kitchener (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
Page 24 of 722
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.
The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area, and within a Major Transit
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):
Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within
the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed
development conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical
infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development,
including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and
a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities
to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the
various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents.
Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications (Appendix
`D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform 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.
Page 25 of 722
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:
The City's urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. 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
Page 26 of 722
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
Accessibility for Ontarian's with Disabilities Act.
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
Line Trail. The location of the subject lands in the context of the City's integrated transportation
system supports the proposal for transit -oriented development on the subject lands.
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 Considerable Value and Significance. Phase 2 of the City's 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. 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.
Housinci
The City's primary objective with respect to housing is to provide for an appropriate range, variety
and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying
housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed development increases
the range of dwelling units available in the city. The development is contemplated to include a
Page 27 of 722
range of unit types including, one, two and three bedroom units. Furthermore `townhouse -style'
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
conforms to the Regional Official Plan and policies of the City's Official Plan. 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:
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:
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.
Page 28 of 722
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
Page 29 of 722
APPENDIX 2: Minutes of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (February 7, 2022)
Page 30 of 722
APPENDIX 3 - Minutes of the Meeting of City Council
io
Page 31 of 722
Page 32 of 722
cJ�
CITY OF KITCHENER
C,vE_PN
OFFICIAL PLAN
.
AMENDMENT TO MAP 3
LAND USE
Low Rise Residential
.. High Rise Residential N
® Mixed Use
General Industrial Employment
MIA Institutional
Open Space
—�_:'"�-'�
0 Refer to Secondary Plan For Detail
_ _ __ ___ _ _
�!�•''
�........�
Urban Growth Centre (Downtown)
_ _ _ � _ _ _ _ _
�.........a
Refer to Map
_�
O
Area of Amendment
_ _ _ _—_ _ _ _ _ =
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ O�
••inN From Low Rise Residential
&r�;�l To Medium Rise Residential
=� ______--
s�
N
_-__�___-__________ _ _ _ —
oN
aG
'
-- -
---------------
----------------
----------------
-----------------
���NG�
. .
------------------
------------------
------------------
___________________
-------------------
SCHEDULE W
0
200
REVISED:
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/002/S/JVW
APPLICANT:
METRES
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/004/S/JVW
2701098 ONTARIO INC.
SCALE 1:6,000
Cityof Kitchener
FILE:
OPA20007LES_SchA
134-152 SHANLEY ST.
DATE: APRIL 29, 2021
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING
mxd
Page 32 of 722
Page 33 of 722
CITY OF KITCHENER
OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO MAP 5
SPECIFIC POLICY AREAS
2.3
N
Specific Policy Areas
18.152 Shanley St
6%
® 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
r' To Add To a Specific Policy Area
18.152 Shanley St
1 Q
v
22
S� N
N
`NG�O
k/NG
39 D��P
SCHEDULES'
0 250
METRES
REVISED:
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/002/S/JVW
APPLICANT:
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/004/S/JVW
2701098 ONTARIO INC.
SCALE 1:8,000
City of Kitchener
FILE
OPA20004 BJ V W_M
134-152 SHANLEY ST.
DATE: APRIL 29, 2021
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING
ap5
mxd
Page 33 of 722
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 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by
removing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on
Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto.
2. Schedule Number 83 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by
removing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 2 on
Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto.
3. Schedule Number 83 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by
removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto.
4. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 83 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby
further amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No.
1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, and by zoning the Area 1 lands thereafter as
Medium Rise Residential Six Zone (RES -6) with Site Specific Provision (189) and Holding
Provision (24).
Page 34 of 722
5. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 83 of Appendix "A" to By-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 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby
further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1
attached hereto.
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
Appendix "A", 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, Conservation and Parks or any successor Ministry ("MECP"). 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 of Appendix "A", the following
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.
Page 35 of 722
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:
• artisans' establishment, studio and craftsman shop;
• 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
2022.
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 ,
Mayor
Clerk
Page 36 of 722
SUBJECT AREAS)
O -29 - - R- -4
R-6, 129U -5 1 AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 N
R- AREA 1 -
29U 129U FROM RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE (R-6)
R- UNDER BY-LAW 85-1
WITH SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISION 128R
5 TO MEDIUM RISE RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
4 (RES -6) UNDER BY-LAW 2019-051
_5 '2 S WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (189)
R-6 ` R 5 �� AND HOLDING PROVISION (24)
AREA 2 -
i FROM RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE (R-5)
i R- UNDER BY-LAW 85-1
_5 R_6 WITH SPECIAL USE PROVISION 129U
TO MEDIUM RISE RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
i OSR- (RES -6) UNDER BY-LAW 2019-051
i 1 OSR-2 WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (189)
i AND HOLDING PROVISION (24)
R -
p _ PN BY-LAW 85-1
C-1 CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL ZONE
R-5 D-6 WAREHOUSE DISTRICT ZONE
AREA 1 3 1-1 NEIGHBOURHOOD INSTITUTIONAL ZONE
5
R -
M-1 INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE
M-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE
353 Q R-5 MU -2 MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR
R- 129U ZONE
_5 MU -3 HIGH INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR
_ J 1 -5 1 ZONE
P-1 PUBLIC PARK ZONE
-1 W -5 R- P-2 OPEN SPACE ZONE
2 R-4 RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE
R-5 5 R-5 RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE
i -5 Q R-6 RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
R_ G BY-LAW 2019-051
y COM -1 LOCAL COMMERCIAL ZONE
-5 i N� 1 OSR-2 OPEN SPACE: GREENWAYS ZONE
PSS -6 4 - RES -6 MEDIUM RISE RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
O O
O
5 M-1 M-2, M_2 ZONE GRID REFERENCE
431 SCHEDULE NO. 83
_ _SC LE 5- _ _ _ _ _ _ ED OF APPENDIX 'A'
SC DUL 84 KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051
6 4 R6 105 _6 ZONE LIMITS
MAP NO. 1 0 50 100 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/004/S/JVW
METRES OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/002/S/JVW
2701098 ONTARIO INC. SCALE 1:4,000
City of Kitchener FILE
134-152 SHANLEY ST. DATE: JANUARY 12, 2022 ZBA21004SJVW_MAP1
DEVELOPME T SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING mxd
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
134 -152 Shanley Street
Have Your Voice Heard!
Date: February 7, 2022
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
To view the staff report, agenda,
find meeting details or to
appear as a delegation, visit:
kitchenenca/meetings
To learn more about this project,
Concept drawing including information on your
0 appeal rights, visit:
www.kitchener.ca/
�p�; planningapplications
or contact:
Increase in Reduced Site Specific Craig Dumart, Senior Planner
Building Parking Building 519.741.2200 x 7073
Height Setbacks craig.dumart@kitchener.ca
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, page (38ea( Ur space
ratio, building heights, setbacks and a Holding Provision to regulate site contamination
to permitthe development of an 8 storey, 166 unit multiple dwelling.
Craig Dumart
From: Dave Seller
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 11:57 AM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: ZBA/OPA COMMENTS: 134-152 Shanley Street
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
City of Kitchener
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT COMMENTS
Project Address: 134-152 Shanley Street
Application Type: ZBA & OPA
Comments Of: Transportation Services
Commenter's Name: Dave Seller
Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369
Date of Comments: May 21, 2021
After reviewing the Transportation Impact, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Justification report
that was submitted by Salvini Consulting (March 2021) for this development, Transportation Services offer the
following comments.
The site is expected to generate approximately 62 AM and 76 PM peak hour vehicle trips. Shanley Street is
estimated to operate at 1525 vehicles per day, which is common for a Local street which typically has less than 2000
vehicles per day. The estimated traffic per day includes site generated traffic and forecasted Shanley Street traffic.
Shanley Street was analyzed at the site access and is expected to provide vehicular traffic with an acceptable level of
service, delay and queuing. Also, a left turn lane analysis was completed along Shanley Street at the site access and
it was determined that a left turn lane is not warranted.
Another aspect of the analysis included alternative modes of transportation, whether for tenants or visitors to the
site. Based on the conversations with Salvini Consulting, bicycle parking spaces are being provided for the
development and will incorporate 90 Class A secure bicycle parking spaces and the City of Kitchener's requirement
for Class B bicycle parking spaces will also be satisfied. The Class A and Class B bicycle parking being applied to the
site would follow the intent of the City of Kitchener future zoning by-law. The existing and future cycling
infrastructure in the area will service tenants or visitors and provide an enhanced user experience, coupled with the
other alternative modes of transportation that are also available to tenants or visitors, the existing ION and GRT
routes in the area. Vehicle parking for this development will be unbundled and charged as a separate cost a tenant
and vehicular parking for visitors is being provided on-site.
Page 39 of 722
0 Melissa Mohr < M Mohr@ regionofwaterloo.ca >
To • Craig Dumart
Cc "_ Amanda Kutler; Sean Anderson
OYou forwarded this message on 1/19/2022 3:25 PM.
Good Afternoon;
Fj Reply <Ej Reply All -i Forward 117
Fri 9/24/2021 1:16 Ph
Regional staff understand that the applicant of OPA 2V02 and ZBA 21104 (134-152 Shanley Street) has proposed a geothermal energy system within the development at 134-152 Shanley Street and the City of Kitchener has no concerns with this approach. Regional staff do have
concerns with this aspect of the application and are not in support of geothermal energy systems on the subject lands due to the following.
A Risk Assessment (RA) approach is being used to achieve a Record of Site Condition (RSC) foe 152 Shanley Street, which means that contamination will remain at the site even after the RSC is filed The main contaminant of ooncem in groundwater is trichloroethylene
(TCE). Clue to it being denser than water (i e., a DNAPL), TCE represents a significant threat to deep aquifers used for drinking water in the Region. Free -phase TCE has been historically measured at the property and high levels of TCE will continue to be present in
groundwater after the RSC is filed. The RA has proposed an ongoing allowable level forTCE in groundwater of 168,060 pgi which is five orders of magnitude higher than the generic site condition standard of 1.6 pglL.
The MECP has approved the use of a regulatory mechanism called "Nan -Standard Delineation" for the purposes of the RA based on concerns raised by the environmental consultant (Stantec) that deep drilling to assess the vertical extent of impacts could potentially carry
contaminants (including TCE) downward through the aquitard. Deep drilling for the purposes of installing a geothermal system could also potentially carry contaminants downward through the aquitard.
The RA has proposed Risk Management Measures (RMMs) to mitigate the risks associated with TGE and other contaminants that will remain beneath the site when the property is redeveloped This includes a "restriction prohibiting the installation of groundwater wells for potable,
or non -potable, use at the Site" which will be registered on title through a Certificate of Property Use (CPU). It is unclear whether this restriction would include the proposed geothermal system.
Based on the above, Regional staff are not in support of the use of a geothermal system on this site and request a prohibition on the use of geothermal energy systems be implemented through the Zoning Bylaw Amendment for this proposal based on the
following:
• City of Kitchener's Private Well Prohibition By-law
• The Region's position paper on geothermal systems
Should you have any questions regarding the above or wash to discuss further, please do not hesitate to ask.
Kind Regards,
Melissa
Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner
Planning, Development and Legislative Services
Region of Waterloo
150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor, Kitchener ON N20 4J3
Cell: 1-226-152-8622
Page 40 of 722
Therefore, based on the justification and analysis that was included within the Salvini Consulting report,
Transportation Services can support the proposed parking reduction being sought.
Dave Seller, C.E.T.
Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller(a)kitchener.ca
Page 41 of 722
City of Kitchener- Comment Form
Project Address: 134 -152 Shanley Street
Application Type: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) — City of Kitchener
Commenter's name: Carrie Musselman
Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7068
Written Comments Due: June 7, 2021
Date of comments: May 19, 2021.
1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application:
® Preliminary Sustainability Statement, 134 — 152 Shanley Street, Kitchener. March 22, 2021. IBI
Group.
2. Comments & Issues:
I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendment to facilitate the development of an 8 storey apartment building (172 dwelling units) at 30
Francis St. S. and provided the following:
® It is very encouraging to know that this particular development will be investigating sustainability
measures such as LEED, Net Zero or Passive House that can be incorporated into its design and
will be going beyond the minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code (OBC).
® Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is advanced, going forward all developments will need
to include robust energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo) strive to
achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target.
The details of the proposed development are preliminary, and an updated sustainability statement
will need to be provided through the site plan process.
Based on my review the Sustainability Statement provided in support of the Official Plan and Zoning
Bylaw Amendment is acceptable.
3. Policies, Standards and Resources:
Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and
appropriate, alternative energy systems, 'renewable energy systems and district energy in
1I Page
Page 42 of 722
accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy
consumption.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage
orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such
orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the
necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the
potential for implementing district energy exists.
4. Advice•
➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable
Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate
and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability
Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability-
initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise).
The ENERGY STAR° Multifamily High -Rise Pilot Program for new construction is a new five-year
certification program in Ontario that recognizes buildings that are at least 15% more energy-
efficient than those built to the provincial energy code and meet other program requirements.
More information can be found online at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-
efficiency/buildings/new-buildings/energy-starr-multifamily-high-rise-pilot-program/21966
➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under
'Planning Resources' at ...
a. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_Sustainability_
Statement—Standard—Terms—of Reference.pdf
2 1 Page
Page 43 of 722
City of Kitchener
Zone Change/013A Re Circulation Comments
Project Address:152 Shanley St
Application Type:ZBA & OPA
Comments Of: Urban Design Development Review
Commenter's Name:Sandro Bassanese
Email: sandro.bassanese@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7305
Date of Comments: November 17, 2021
1. Site Specific Comment:
The comments provided below are related to specific documents/plans resubmitted in support of the
zone change application.
Urban Design Brief:
The design brief has sufficiently addressed and achieved the intent of the Mid -rise design
guidelines as per the Urban Design Manual.
The shadow analysis provided with the proposed height has minimal additional shadow impacts.
The shadow study as submitted is acceptable.
Tree Management Plan/Arborist Letter:
® All trees to be removed in common ownership will require consent from the adjacent property
owners prior to approval in principle.
® The updated arborist letter provides a replacement value of trees to be removed in common
ownership as per current ISA standards which is acceptable to staff.
a The length of the monitoring program is to be further defined, currently prior to, during and
after construction monitoring is noted however no time period has been provided for this
monitoring (i.e. 1, year 2 years). The time period for monitoring is to be as per current ISA
standards.
® Tree #3:
o Further discussion will be required around posting of the LOC and who it will be
returned to. An amount is to be added to the LOC for removal and disposal of the tree if
it goes into decline. These items are to be confirmed prior to approval in principle.
® The compensation notes on the Vegetation Management Plan (L 0.0) below
A City for Everyone
Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Pg. 1 of 2
Page 44 of 722
NOTE: COMPENSATION CALCULATED FOLLOWING THE TRUNK FORMULA METHOD:
1. AVERAGE DIAMETER OF TREES REMOVED IN GOOD CONDITION = 16"
2. AVERAGE CROSS SECTIONAL AREA = 201" SQUARED
3. COST PER TREE REMOVED = $8,173.00
4. TOTAL COST OF REMOVALS BEFORE PLANTING COMPENSATION, 6NCLUDING
LOCATION AND SPECIES DEVALUATION (17.55 X 0.65) = $'2x7,453.29
Are to be replaced with the note from the revised arborist letter below as they provide a better
understanding of compensation value.
Prior to finalizing compensation planting layout in the Landscape Plan, the
following Trunk Formula Valuation Method calculations were done to determine the
total monetary value of trees in good condition or better, being removed due to
construction impact.
Trunk Formula Method:
1. Average diameter of trees in good condition removed= (50+20+45+20+20+70+60) / 7
= 40.7cm OR 16.23inches
2. Average cross-sectional trunk area = (16.23 x 16.23 x 0.7854) = 201 inches squared
3. Solving for average value. Cost of replacement tree = $250, cross-sectional trunk area
of replacement tree = 6.15 inches squared.
Average value of tree removed = (201 x 25016.15) = $8,173
4. Devaluation based on location (0.55 multiplier) and species (0.65 multiplier)
= $8.173 x 0.55 x 0.65
= $2,921.84
Average value of tree in good condition being removed is $2,921.84
Seven trees in good condition are being removed which amounts to a total of
$20,453.29
Consent for compensation planting will be required prior to approval in principle.
Compensation plantings offsite on adjacent private properties is noted, a compensation planting
plan and details of warranty and maintenance period are to be provided prior to approval in
principle.
® A letter of credit for 100% of the cost to replace the trees on private property is to be provided
by the developer and will be held by City staff until the warranty period has been completed and
certified by the project landscape architect at which time the LOC will be returned to the
developer. Details of the LOC will be finalized through the site plan approval process.
Landscape Concept Plan:
Soil volume noted for trees over slab meets Urban Design Manual standards.
The streetscape plan as provided will be the basis for review and approval of plantings in the
ROW moving forward. The applicant is advised as part of future site plan submissions that a
stand alone streetscape plan noting works fully within the ROW is to be prepared and to be
circulated to Parks and Operations staff for review. Parks and operations staff will review
approve and confirm the securities, certification and maintenance requirements of planting
through the site plan process.
A City for Everyone
Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Pg. 2 of 2
Page 45 of 722
Internal memo
Development Services Department
Date:
November 17, 2021
To:
Craig Dumart, Senior Planner
From:
Victoria Grohn, Senior Heritage Planner
cc:
Subject:
Resubmission No. 1
Official Plan Amendment OPA21/002/S/JVW
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/004/S/JVW
134-152 Shanley Street
Revised Heritage Planning Comments
K'iz :r ;ER
www.kitchener.ca
Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the amended Planning Justification and Urban Design
Report ("Report") for 134 & 152 Shanley Street prepared by IBI Group and dated October 14, 2021.
Overall, the updated Report appears to address comments previously provided by Heritage
Planning staff with respect to the inclusion of additional details regarding adherence to the Vision
Statement. Heritage Planning staff note that while non-residential uses are not contemplated at this
time, flexibility in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment has been provided for the inclusion of
non-residential uses in the future. Heritage Planning staff continue to encourage that non-residential
uses be incorporated into the development at grade. Heritage Planning staff also reiterate the
comments provided on June 4, 2021 regarding an appropriate height that would respect the historic
fagade of the former Electrohome building. However, the overall massing and density of the current
proposal is similar to what was endorsed through the vision statement for this site. The development
proposal should provide front yard setbacks that are consistent with the adjacent properties on
Duke Street and Shanley Street and that maximum and minimum front yard setbacks should be
outlined in the ZBA.
As a point of clarification, page 57 of the Report states that the subject lands are not located within
a cultural heritage landscape (CHL). The subject lands are located within the Mt Hope/Breithaupt
Neighbourhood CHL.
Heritage Planning staff will provide additional comments through the Site Plan process with respect
to the new construction being designed to commemorate the cultural heritage significance of the
former Electrohome building and site. A Salvage, Reuse and Commemoration Plan will be required
as part of a future Site Plan application.
Page 46 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Angela Mick
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 6:11 PM
To: Jason Brule; Craig Dumart
Cc: Sandro Bassanese; Victoria Grohn
Subject: Re: 152 Shanley OPA/ZBA Resubmission
No comments
Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada's largest network.
From: Jason Brule <Jason.Brule@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 20219:07:53 AM
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Sandro Bassanese <Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>; Victoria Grohn <Victoria.Grohn@kitchener.ca>; Angela Mick
<Angela.Mick@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: 152 Shanley OPA/ZBA Resubmission
Hi Craig,
I have reviewed the documents and don't have any concerns. I will let Angela provide KU's comments straight
to you seeing as she was directly involved in the circulation from Planning.
Let me know if you need anything else from me at this time.
Regards,
Jason Brule, C.E.T.
519-741-2200 ext.7419
From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 20213:02 PM
To: Sandro Bassanese<Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>; Victoria Grohn <Victoria.Grohn@kitchener.ca>; Jason Brule
<Jason.Brule @kitchener.ca>; Angela Mick <Angela.Mick@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: 152 Shanley OPA/ZBA Resubmission
Hi everyone,
If you haven't had a chance to review the re submission material yet could you review this week and provide comments
to me by Monday of next week Q
Craig
From: Craig Dumart
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202111:39 AM
To: Sandro Bassanese<Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>; Victoria Grohn <Victoria.Grohn@kitchener.ca>; Jason Brule
<Jason.Brule@kitchener.ca>; Angela Mick <Angela.Mick@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Michelle Drake <michelle.drake@kitchener.ca>; Garett Stevenson <Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 152 Shanley OPA/ZBA Resubmission
Page 47 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:07 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Cc: Jenn Simons
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (134-152 Shanley Street)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Juliane,
134-152 Shanley Street is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment. Thanks,
.b Trevor Heywood
Resource Planner
Grand River Conservation Authority
� 4G
theywood@grandriver.ca
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 202110:34 AM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandrive r.ca>; Chris
Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengeIly@grandrive r.ca>; Jenn Simons <jsimons@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel
<Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson
<Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron
<gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>;
Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM)
<Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk <Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning
<PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>;
Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; UW - SA
<Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary
(elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca>
Cc: Juliane vonWesterholt <Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (134-152 Shanley Street)
Please see attached. Comment or questions should be directed to Juliane von Westerholt (copied on the
mail).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
Page 48 of 722
Region of Waterloo
Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP
Planner
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor
P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON
N2G 4G7
Dear Mr. Dumart,
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
Community Planning
150 Frederick Street 8th Floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4466
www. regionofwaterl oo.ca
Melissa Mohr 226-752-8622
File: D17/2/21002
C14/2/21004
July 14, 2021
Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/02 and
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/04
134-152 Shanley Street
IBI Group (C/O David Galbraith) on behalf of 2701098
Ontario Inc. (C/O Shannondale Developments)
CITY OF KITCHENER
IBI Group on behalf of 2701098 Ontario Inc. has submitted an Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 134-152 Shanley Street
in the City of Kitchener.
The purpose and effect of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment is
to construct an eight (8) -storey building that includes an internal parking structure and
rooftop amenity terrace. The building will contain 172 residential dwelling units
comprised of townhouse and apartment style residences. The proposed building is
situated at the corner of Shanley Street and Duke Street West, with a principal entrance
from Duke Street West and individual access points to at grade units fronting on
Shanley Street. Underground parking and a rooftop amenity area is also proposed.
To facilitate the redevelopment, the owner has requested an Official Plan Amendment
to redesignate the lands from Low Rise Residential to Medium Density Residential with
a special policy area to permit a floor space ratio of 3.0 and a maximum height of 27.5
metres. In addition, the applicant requires a Zoning By-law Amendment to add a
special regulation provision to allow for the increased height and density as well as
reduced building setbacks and a reduction in parking requirements.
Document Number: 3734745 Version: 1
Page 49 of 722
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo has had the opportunity to review the proposal
and offers the following:
Regional Comments
Consistency with Provincial Legislation and Regional Official Plan Conformity
The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built Up Area" on Schedule 3a of
the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the site is located designated Low Rise
Residential with Special Policy Area 18 in the City of Kitchener Official Plan.
Furthermore, the subject lands are zoned Residential Six (R6) with Special Regulation
128.
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). 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 Major Transit
Station Areas (MTSA's).
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. Mostly all of
the Region's future growth will occur within the Urban Area and Township Urban Area
designations, with a substantial portion of this growth directed to the existing Built -Up
Area of the Region through reurbanization. Focal points for reurbanization include
Urban Growth Centres, Township Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas,
Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes (ROP Section 2.13).
Regional staff understand that the proposal is for a medium rise residential development
that is located within 600-800 metres of the Central ION stop in Kitchener. Regional
staff have no objection to increased density proposed on site as this type of residential
development supports the Planned Community Function of the Regional Official Plan.
In addition to the above, the Region wishes to advise the applicant of the following
technical comments related to the proposal:
Record of Site Condition
There are known and high environmental threats located on the subject lands due to
past land uses in accordance with the Region's Treats Inventory Database (TID). A
Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required
in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines. The Region shall accept
a holding zone until such time that the RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter
have been received.
Document Number: 3734745 Version: 1
Page 50 of 722
Stationary Noise Comments
The stationary noise report entitled "Stationary Noise Impact Study 152 Shanley Street"
prepared by JJ Acoustics Engineering Limited is currently under review and comments
will be provided separately. It is recommended that these comments be received
prior to the City proceeding with a recommendation.
Housing Services
The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including
affordable housing. The Region's 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan contains an
affordable housing target for Waterloo Region. The target is for 30% of all new
residential development between 2019 and 2041 to be affordable to low and moderate
income households. Staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of
affordable housing units on the site. Staff further recommend meeting with Housing
Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for
partnerships or programs.
In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who
require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides, there should be
an agreement in place with conditions establishing the income levels of the people who
can rent or own the homes as well as conditions on how long those units need to
remain affordable. A security should be registered on title to ensure the affordable units
are maintained over the term of the agreement.
For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit (based on the
definition in the Regional Official Plan), the purchase price is compared to the least
expensive of:
Housing for which the purchase price results in annual
accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross
$368,000
annual household income for low and moderate income
households
Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent
below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the
$487,637
regional market area
tsasea on the most recent information available trom the PPS Housing Tables (2020).
In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house
price is $368,000.
For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit (based on the definition of
affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan), the average rent is compared to the
east expensive or:
A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the
gross annual household income for low and moderate income $1,420
renter households
Document Number: 3734745 Version: 1
Page 51 of 722
A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent
(AMR) in the regional market area
`Based on the most recent
PPS Hnucinn Tahlas (90901
Bachelor: $863
1 -Bedroom: $1,076
2 -Bedroom: $1,295
3 -Bedroom: $1,359
4+ Bedroom: $1,359
In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must
be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above.
Fees
By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the Region's
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment review fees totalling $6,900.00.
General Comments
Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application will be
subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any
successor thereof.
Comments relating to the Stationary Noise Study will be provided separately. It is
recommended that these comments be received prior to the city proceeding with a
recommendation. In addition, the Region requests a Holding Zone be implemented
on the subject lands until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry
Acknowledgment Letter related to the RSC have been received (to the satisfaction
of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo).
Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to this
application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner
C. 2701098 Ontario Inc. C/O Shannondale Developments (Owner)
IBI Group C/O David Galbraith (Applicant)
Document Number: 3734745 Version: 1
Page 52 of 722
Building comments
From: Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 202111:23 AM
To: Christine Kompter <Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>; Juliane vonWesterholt
<Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (134-152 Shanley Street)
HI ladies,
Hope you are well.
When happened to the former 1 pager comment sheet that staff or other would sign off and send back
to Planning? I liked it VS sending back an email.
On this project Building has no concerns and a RSC will be required.
Mike
Page 53 of 722
Craig Dumart
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
Good Afternoon Craig,
Melissa Mohr <MMohr@reg ionofwaterloo.ca>
Wednesday, December 29, 2021 3:09 PM
Craig Dumart
Shilling Yip
[EXTERNAL] Stationary Noise Comments regarding OPA21/02 and ZBA 21/04 (134-152
Shanley Street)
DOCS ADMIN-#3910416-v1-JJ-00276-NIS1 152
_Shanley_Street_Noise_Impact_Study_pdf_-_u pdated.PDF
High
Regional Staff have reviewed the attached noise study entitled, "Stationary Noise Impact Study, 152 Shanley Street,
Kitchener, Ontario" (JJ Acoustic Engineering Ltd., March 9, 2021). The report conclusions and recommendations are
acceptable. Significant on-site noise sources identified within the report include a sidewall belt drive exhaust fan, fluid
cooler and emergency generator; and recommends mitigation in the form of a silencer added to the exhaust fan assembly
and a rooftop noise barrier around the fluid cooler and emergency generator. With these mitigation measures, it is
expected predicted noise levels will meet the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks NPC -300 noise limit
criteria (for these sources) for the daytime and nighttime periods at both on-site and off-site noise receptors.
Section 4 of the report addresses the impact of off-site noise sources on the development. The report notes these off-site
noise sources include small HVAC units and have been included in Attachment D. However, we note Attachment D only
includes the signed Owners Statement and not a listing of the HVAC units. Nevertheless, the modelled results of the off-
site noise sources are shown in Figure 5 which concludes,the modelled results of off-site noise sources are also expected
to meet NPC -300 noise limit criteria at on-site noise receptors during the daytime and nighttime periods. Therefore, no
mitigation is required in this regard.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
The recommended minimum 2.8 metre high rooftop acoustical barrier must surround the fluid cooler and generator on all
sides, with a surface density of 20 kg/m2, and without holes, gaps or cracks. Any gaps at the bottom to allow for drainage
must be minimal.
The exhaust fan for the parking garage shall require a silencer which meets the minimum insertion losses identified in the
"Insertion Losses" table on p. 5 of the report.
Staff recommends, prior to the issuance of a building permit, that a Professional Engineer qualified to perform acoustical
services certify that the mitigation measures noted comply with the recommendations of the noise study and noise the
limit criteria in NPC -300.
The above accepted recommendations shall be implemented through the design of the building (the rooftop
noise barrier for the mechanical equipment and silencer for the exhaust fan must be noted on the site plan) at the
Site Plan Stage and implemented through an agreement between the Applicant/Owner/Developer and the City of
Kitchener at a future Consent or Plan of Condominium Stage.
I trust the above is of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
Melissa
Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner
Planning, Development and Legislative Services
Region of Waterloo
Page 54 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Elanor Waslander
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 1:45 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: 134-152 Shanley Street Site Walk/Development Discussion
Thanks Craig! This response is very helpful and appreciated.
Elanor
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 1:37 PM Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart!2kitchener ca> wrote:
Hi Elanor,
Comments are reviewed and considered by staff when making their recommendation. Common themes are identified
and discussed with the applicant. Your concerns were among common themes identified and discussed at
Neighbourhood Meeting. Public comments will form part of the public record as an attachment to the staff report.
Tomorrow will be a great opportunity to discuss your comments more in depth with the developer and staff.
We look forward to meeting with you then.
Have a great afternoon.
Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
(519) 741-2200 ext 7073 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 craig.dumart(aD.kitchener ca
r
Page 55 of 722
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 134-152 Shanley Street Site Walk/Development Discussion
Hi Craig,
Thank you kindly for your email and invitation to join the site walk. I look forward to discussing the
development with you tomorrow.
I was wondering what happened to the comments we submitted in the previous consultation. Do these
comments have an impact on the development? I attended the town hall as well and was quite disappointed
with the format of the proceedings as I was not able to discuss my concerns and also felt like my previously
emailed comments fell on deaf ears. Could you confirm receipt of my comments (signed by 4 residents in our
neighbourhood)?
I am happy to continue to engage in this process as I'd like to see some changes made to the development,
but also recognize that if there is no real opportunity to change the development at this stage that I'd like to
be aware of that.
My main concerns are:
- the height of the building - 27m is far taller than any surrounding buildings and more than 2x as tall as the
previous building
- the number of units that are not for families (1-2 bedroom rather than 2-3 bedroom)
- that units are not being bought/sold; rental community is more transient than current surrounding
neighbourhood
- traffic volume concerns and unsafe intersections with inconsistent traffic rules in comparison with other 4
way stops in the area
Thanks for considering my requests above and reviewing my concerns, I look forward to your reply.
Much appreciated,
Elanor
FN
Page 56 of 722
Letter in sup part of re -zoning request for 134-152 Shanley Street
Public Meeting, February 7" at 7 pm
Councillor Chapman, fellow Councillors
reside within 120 metres of this proposed development.
This brownfield site once contained a derelict, vandalized factory building vacant for over 25 years which was ordered demolished by
the City. The developer has spent considerable time and money demolishing the building and offered a commitment to clean up the
contamination and build a much-needed rental property an the site.
Prior to the sale of the building/the site, the City held a number of public meetings including a neighbourhood "charette" which
resulted in a "visioning statement" where potential re -uses were explored. At the time of the charette, attended by 60 plus residents,
the "vision" outlined a build similar to that proposed by the developer.
Over the past number of years, the developer has revised and adapted the original proposal based on significant feedback from
residents. The re -zoning of the single-family home (134 Shanley) and the factorysite (152 Shanley) is required in order to allow this
build to proceed. I believe it will be a welcome addition to the neighbourhood once completed and will provide much needed "mid
rise" rentals
The design of the street level apartments will give the renter access to street level green space and should be attractive to renters with
children. This street level access with private green space will also do much to help integrate the new renters into the
neighbourhood. The developer has been thoughtful in the design and committed to re -using some of the heritage aspects of the old
factory— re -using reclaimed brick, factory beams in the new build. The stepped -back design of the upper floors will mitigate Shadow
Impacts to neighbouring homes. The placement of the building on the site and its orientation has also been designed to minimize
Impact to the neighbouring properties. The proposed landscaping plans at ground level and the public amenity spaces on upperfloors
are in keeping with the City's desire to increase tree canopy. It is unusual, particularly in care neighbourhoods, to see an infill build
wth this amount of greenspace.
Personally, I am looking forward to having the completed building in the neighbourhood ratherthan living adjacent to a derelict,
contaminated building. In fact, my perception is this new build will actually increase the value of existing homes surrounding the site.
urge Councillors to approve this re -zoning request.
Sincerely
Catherine Ciwens
Page 57 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Catherine Owens
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 3:10 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley Street - Comments on the Proposed Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: Planning Staff, PSIC Committee, The Mayor and Council
Kudos to Shannondale Developments for taking on the challenge of re -developing this contaminated brownfield site
which has been a plight on our midtown neighbourhood for decades. I am pleased to see that this developer has created
a very viable building design similar to, if not an improvement on, the design originally envisioned by the City and
created after significant neighbourhood consultation prior to the building having to be demolished (known as "The
Vision Statement"). I believe the build will actually add value to the immediate surrounding homes rather than
detracting value being adjacent to a contaminated site.
The Vision statement originally proposed a two storey addition on what was then a four storey industrial building with
higher than normal floor height. The proposed build is not only in keeping with the Vision Statement (approximately 3
metres higher) but is in fact an improved design in that the stepping of the lower floors diminishes the shadow impact
on the existing single family residences surrounding the building. The eight storey building is, in my view, a viable
compromise.
The build envisions 172 units (probably rental), many of which will be "family units" or at least will be larger that many
of the units currently being built in central Kitchener. The site sits in the middle of a residential neighbourhood and the
fact that the developer is planning street access to the main floor units will be a welcome addition to the neighbourhood
and offer "more eyes on the street" and better integration of the residents into the neighbourhood. I live within 120
metres of the site and feel that the height/design will in fact add to the neighbourhood vibrancy.
I am fully supportive of the re -zoning and build and have no issues with
1. The height— only slightly higher than The Vision Statement
2. Reduced parking and higher density— its within 800 metres of a MTSA
3. Shadow— no significant shadow impact
4. Traffic— minimal traffic impact
5. Re-zoning/demolition of 134 Shanley—this home is not heritage designated and the homeowner opted to sell
Shannondale, to date, has been a very good neighbour — they surrounded the site with a high quality construction fence
and ultimately sponsored a neighbourhood art project. We are assuming that the willingness of Shannondale to be a
good neighbourhood is a testament to the way they will treat the site during the clean up and construction phases. They
have also made a concerted effort to engage with the Ward Councillor and some of the immediate neighbours in order
to ensure that they have a neighbourhood compatible design.
Looking forward to see this long abandoned site utilized for additional housing.
Sincerely
Page 58 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Juliane vonWesterholt
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 5:26 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Feedback for Application OPA21/002/S/JVW / 152 Shanley St Property
/Feedback
Here is an email for you Craig for Shanley.
From: Tanya Wright < -
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 20218:16 AM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt <Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca>; Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback for Application OPA21/002/S/JVW / 152 Shanley St Property / Feedback
RE: We want your input: a private property owner is requesting permissions to develop an
8 -storey building with a total of 172 residential dwelling units.
Applications involved: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA21/002/S/JVW
Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/004/S/JVW
Address: 134-152 Shanley Street
Owner: 2701098 Ontario Inc. (Shannondale Developments)
Hello,
I recently attended the Public meeting on Thursday June 17th to discuss the above noted property. I am providing my
feedback in writing about the proposal. an adjacent property to the proposed building.
Design
I want to acknowledge that a considerable amount of thought went into the proposed design. I was impressed by that
effort by both Superkul and Shannondale. It's a thoughtful design.
Height of building
I do not want an 8 storey (27M) building behind me. I have an issue with both the height and the number of units that
are being proposed in what is largely a neighbourhood of single family homes and some low rise rental units. The
Planning and Urban Design Report prepared by the IBI Group does reference the proposed design coming out of the
Charette from a few years ago. I did attend the session but did not approve of the design that came out of the
afternoon. I would only have approved of a 6 modern storey building. I also did not agree with unduly burdening a
developer with having to save the old 4 storey building as the expense would have been considerable.
Loss of Privacy to my backyard
The higher the building, means there will be more units and the loss of morning sun into my house and in my yard. My
biggest concern is the loss of privacy to my backyard.
I spend a considerable amount of time in my backyard from May to October. I have extensive gardens and take on new
projects each year. A large part of the value comes from the privacy I have.
The proposed design by Shannondale will have 53 units (2nd floor through to 8th floor) that will have access to view
my backyard once the existing trees are removed. Even if/when new trees are planted I lose my privacy for the next
10 to 15 years and possibly never depending on the height of the building and where trees are planted. The loss of
privacy will be a considerable loss to the value of my backyard. I'm not willing to agree to lose that value.
Page 59 of 722
How do ,ve balance Shannondale's right to profit with my privacy?
I appreciate Shannondale's right to make a profit on the development but that should not come at the permanent loss
of n -y privacy or the loss of privacy to my neighbour's yards.
Parking
I have some secondary concerns about parking. I am worried that so few visitor parking spaces will create an issue of
many cars using Stahl Ave to park. It's a little dead end street that is very narrow. This becomes a huge issue in the
winter. If someone parks to the North east side of my driveway I cannot get out of my driveway because
snow along the side of the road narrows the street so only a single car can get through. I would like the City to consider
making Stahl Ave a No Parking street through the winter months.
Thanks,
Tanya Wright
2
Page 60 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Juliane vonWesterholt
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 9:45 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Proposed development of 152 Shanley
Good morning Mr. Richbell,
I can confirm that the city has received your email with your comments and concerns. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Juliane vonWesterholt
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
From: Nick Richbell
Sent: Friday, June 25, 20219:24 AM
To: Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh @kitchener.ca>; Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>; Juliane vonWesterholt
<Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Proposed development of 152 Shanley
Good morning,
Please can you acknowledge receipt of this email.
Thank you.
On Mon., Jun. 21, 2021, 7:37 a.m. Nick Richbell
Good morning,
e:
I write with regards to the proposed development of 152 Shanley Street, Kitchener. I am a resident on Stah Avenue.
Firstly, I note that it was very disappointing that the developer was allowed to run over their allotted presentation time
on June 17th. It was even more disappointing when the Q&A section that was being recorded, was cut short to move to
the "open dialogue" section that was not recorded.
We oppose this proposed development as it was presented.
Why are there no business spaces on the first floor? We were told that residential units could not be placed there
owing to the nature of the contaminated ground.
The proposed building does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Your senior planner noted that
"character does not mean the same as". That's correct, however, this modern building is going to be an eyesore and
zero historical research has been made by the developer.
What year was the traffic study conducted that was mentioned by your staff member? I can tell you that if you stand
on Duke, Shanley, Louisa, or Wilhelm, you will see people speed along the streets like on a race track. I won't even start
about the dangerous crossing at Shanley/Waterloo.
Page 61 of 722
When asked,about amenities the developer mentioned they may put in a ping pong table. Was he joking?
Why is a building of 100% rental being considered?
Have your team members stood in my front yard and reviewed the issue of less to zero sunlight coming on my
property?
Once again, the City of Kitchener let a building get to the point where the only option was to demolish it.
This development is going to destroy our neighborhood, plain and simple.
Sincerely,
Nicholas (Nick) Richbell
Page 62 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: meredith
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2021 6:05 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley Street Plan and Zoning Application
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Juliane -
My name is Meredith Pope and I reside _ _ . •operty will back onto
the proposed residential building at the address above (on its west side).
I support a residential building at the site in question, under a R8 re -zoning for the 152 Shanley property only. I
understand the challenges in place with the remediation of the site.
I have several concerns regarding the 2 applications (OPA21/002/S/JVW and ZBA21/004/S/1VW), for simplicity I have
listed them below:
1. Re -zoning of the 134 Shanley residential property will eliminate a well-maintained long standing single family
century home, to create a paved driveway. This is not consistent with the goals of our community.
2. Parking ratio, and density/massing of units -- the modification of the proposed R8 plan is excessive
- the FSR increase to 3 and the DRASTICALLY poor parking ratio of 0.74 parking spaces /,unit is unacceptable
- parking as per the R8 zoning is 220 spaces vs the 128 proposed. Although I am optimistic regarding the transit hub and
use of cycling/walking etc — almost 100 fewer spots than mandated by current zoning woefully provides for the
proposed tenants -- I would expect this will lead to marked street parking on our neighbourhood roads which will impact
our own use of these street spots and also increase vehicular traffic in our area (ie down our dead end street)
- adding > 172 new residents to our low density residential community will have a vast impact on our community with
minimal additional value (no retail on floor 1, removal of trees, no public spaces we can access and the impact of > 172
new residents on our small local parks and trails).
- majority single bedroom rental units: I expect this will lead to a high proportion of short term rentals/airbnbs and
possibly high turn -over of tenants who may not value or contribute to our community to the same degree as
families/longer term owners. I am concerned about the "upkeep" of the terraces/patios etc
3. Height of building
-.both a modification to the zoning (to 138) AND an additional allowance to 27m seems excessive in the heart of a
residential community. Although the step backs are visually appealing, adding private terraces simply change the means
by which renters will now look into our backyards, and these terraces increase the risk of tenant noise and eye -sore
issues (laundry/bikes/storage). Can you provide examples of other residential areas where this zoning exception has
been provided? I feel the height of the building, even in its "L shape" is excessive and an undue impact on the privacy of
our backyards and impact on shadows of our yards.
- as the community had previously expressed, a building height of 6 standard stories in an L shape with the bulk towards
the Shanley/Duke intersection would be an acceptable balance of the developers challenges/financial goals and impact
on our properties
4. Traffic Study and Safety of Duke/Shanley intersection
Page 63 of 722
- the traffic study was completed during the provincial "Emergency Lockdown" measures due to the ongoing COVID
pandemic. At this time there were also multiple signs in the area (ie: on Waterloo St, Duke St, Wilhelm) indicating the
roads were closed to local traffic only. I do not expect these factors have resulted in a reliable traffic study, and the
conclusions drawn from this study would not be reliable in their interpretation. I am significantly concerned with the
true impact of this development on our traffic volumes post -pandemic.
- given the unusual nature of the Duke/Shanley intersection (limited visibility for traffic travelling on Duke towards
Wilhem, stop for traffic only on Shanley, unfortunately the speed at which vehicles travel on Duke) I would be concerned
for pedestrian safety at this intersection with increased traffic. Is there consideration being given to modify this
intersection (ie 3 way stop)?
S. Transformer location
- as per plans a large "transformer" will be located immediately adjacent to the back of our lot. What information can
you provide regarding the noise this will cause, and the height of this structure and any possible odour/gas production?
The provided noise assessment references only a belt drive exhaust fan, a cooler and a generator.
6. Tree removal
- the removal of the significant canopy at the rear aspect of the lot will serve to further impact the privacy of our
backyards. I appreciate the effort made to avoid damage to trees and also compensate for tree loss for properties
affected, however these measures cannot ameliorate the impact a 27m height building would have on our privacy.
Questions
- What is the proposed timeline of site construction?
- The proposal package makes reference to both a Shanley and Duke street vehicle access. It is unclear how removal of
the Duke street access (as per drawings) will impact the conclusions drawn in the traffic study/wind study etc.
- Will there be a plan for parking for the numerous construction vehicles and personal vehicles of workers on site?
I will attend the June 17th "Neighbourhood meeting" but would also like to be added to your contact list for any updates
regarding this property moving forward.
Thank you for your consideration -
Meredith Pope
Page 64 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Nick Richbell
Sent:
Thursday, May 13, 2021 2:08 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley Street West
DearJuliane,
I write in response to your letter dated May 10, 2021 with respect to the requested permission to develop an 8 -storey
building with a total of 172 residential dwelling units.
We do not agree with this project.
This will destroy our neighborhood.
Traffic is already a serious concern. There is no parking. The local park is neglected. We do NOT need 172 new condos in
this area. This will not bring anything good to the neighborhood.
How many new condo buildings does this city need? What kickbacks will the city be taking to approve this project? It's
about time the City put its foot down and did what's right for its citizens!!
Nicholas Richbell
Page 65 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: victoria maxwell )m>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 12:43 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley Street
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello:
this will not be a supportive email to your proposal.
The proposed site would normally be occupied by 10 houses? Those 10 houses may have as many as 2 cars each (20).
What you are proposing is an increase of 172 and possibly 344 cars. Where would those cars be exiting and entering the
underground parking lot? The streets are very narrow in our neighbourhood and we are already trying to reduce traffic
and speeds. Is this not counterproductive?
One hundred and seventy-two units in an area that would normally house 10 family homes would mean 22 apartments
on each floor. Is that correct? We have rental units in the neighbourhood on that block that already cause extraordinary
noise in the summer evenings. Were family apartments considered with two and three bedrooms? A rooftop garden is a
lovely concept providing parties are not allowed.
Where is the waste from 172 units going to be stored and removed? I can't imagine the shocking experience of an
across -the -road neighbour having as many as 8 times 8 balconies (64) all letting out onto your front veranda. Yes, I have
grave concerns that the residents would blend in with the quiet dog walking neighbourhood. So, that makes me think.
Would there be 172 dogs and goodness knows how many cats occupying this tiny property?
The concept sketch is highly deceiving. Wide boulevards and open vistas do not capture the actual physical situation.
This is an ill conceived project for this site. Townhouses would be a much more reasonable blend into the
neighbourhood.
Victoria Maxwell
Page 66 of 722
Craig Dumart
From:
Caleb Neumeister
Sent:
Monday, May 24, 2021 7:23 PM
To:
Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] 152 Shanley comments
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hi Juliane,
I live at is site and I often sit on my front porch and wonder how things will change with this
new build. I've lived here for 5 years now and I was so happy to see the old electrohome building come down! Anything
will be a welcome change from that decrepit eyesore.
I have read all the studies and information posted about Shannondales build on the city of Kitchener's website and I like
what I see. The building won't cast a shadow on my house, traffic will not increase exponentially and the building itself
won't add any noise to the neighborhood. I am mildy concerned about how adding that many people and density to my
corner will affect the peaceful feel of the area. It seems like a lot of units to add to a small peice of land, but I guess
that's what living in a city means.
Also, from what I was hearing before was that the ground was contaminated and residential units couldn't be on the
main floor. Has this information changed?
I would love to be kept in the loop of future meetings and progress reports of this process and l appreciate the chance to
voice my opinion.
Thanks,
Caleb
Page 67 of 722
Craig Dumart
From:
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 2:15 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Cc: Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 152 Shanley St. - Our comments to Proposed Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Juliane,
We apologize for the late e-mail, we thought today was the last day for comments.
My husband Richard FitzGerald and I, Claudia FitzGerald, live at
I- -- -e have lived in our beautiful Century Home (1886 or earlier) for 27 years. We love our
neighbourhood and feel proud to leave here, great community, friendly and respectful neighbours.
We are very concerned about the proposed 8 storeys building, we were told in a meeting with Shannondale at
City Hall that the building wouldn't be much taller that previous building, possibly 5-6 storeys.
This would overcome our neighbourhood, and a huge increase in people leaving in a small area, we already
deal with so much traffic on our street, we have called numerous times the City of Kitchener Transportation
Dept., about cars driving so fast, that people in wheel chairs, scooters, and ourselves leaving or coming into
our driveway have been almost hit by speeding cars.
Another concern we have is the proposed setback, it's too close to the sidewalk and it should be the same as
the houses in neighborhood. Almost all of our homes have front porch, where we sit and socialized with
passing neighbours.
We are also concerned about the water drain, we don't want our homes to be flooded constantly by so much
water coming from there.
Please help us to preserve our beautiful neighborhood!
Sincerely,
Rich & Claudia FitzGerald
Page 68 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Katherine Spring '
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 1:18 AM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Cc: Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 152 Shanley St.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
I apologize for the tardy submission of my comments regarding the proposal for development at 152 Shanley St. I hope
that my submission can still be accounted for.
As a Kitchener resident who lives 3.5 blocks away from the development site at 152 Shanley St., I write to express my
strongest opposition to the proposal for the construction of an 8 -storey building on the lot.
The high-density capacity of the proposed building -- 172 residential units -- will increase automobile traffic to
dangerous levels. The site is located at the intersection of two relatively quiet residential streets that are used heavily by
pedestrians and cyclists, including young children like mine who walk to/from school during rush hours. The increased
traffic around that corner of Duke St. and Shanley St. will put the safety of our community members at serious risk.
In addition, the proposed height of 8 storeys represents a 33% increase to the 6 -storey building envisioned by the
neighbourhood in 2018. This scale will further violate the aesthetic integrity and architectural consistency of one of
Kitchener's most treasured neighbourhoods, which consists primarily of single-family homes and 2- or 2.5 -storey
residences.
Lastly, it's worth noting that the proposal does not reflect the neighbourhood vision statement in other ways, e.g., it
lacks amenity space, it fails to dedicate space to community or retail use, and it lacks elements that reflect the heritage
value of the site and the neighbourhood.
While I recognize and appreciate the urgent need for more housing in KW, a disruption to our community through the
construction of an 8 -storey building, which will tower over residential homes and increase traffic to dangerous levels, is
not a viable solution.
I oppose the proposal in the strongest possible terms and urge the members of City Council to do the same. At that
corner, 6 storeys is more than enough!
Thank you for your time.
Best wishes,
Katherine Spring
Page 69 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Catherine Owens < ,>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 9:59 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt; Craig Dumart
Cc: Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 152 Shanley Street - Traffic issues
Glad to see a number of the traffic planning staff on the call/public meeting tonight re the Shannondale build.
Just to keep you in the loop ....
Three members of the Mt. Hope Breithaupt Park Development Committee have a meeting with Barry Cronkite next
week to discuss all these traffic issues in Midtown. Our focus is on the portion of Ward 10 bounded by
Victoria/King/Weber/Union so our discussions with Barry will cover the 152 Shanley Site. We have asked for a larger,
more comprehensive traffic review due to Station Park, Google, Spur Line (Moore Ave in Waterloo), the Transit Hub
(closure of Duke — and previously Waterloo St.), the proposed new highway 7 impacting Wellington ....
I know that ultimately you will be addressing these traffic concerns specific to the build but I just wanted to let you know
that we have a bit of a "grass roots" investigation already occurring with the City.
Page 70 of 722
Craig Dumart
From:
Kathy Mortimer
Sent:
Thursday, June 03, 2021 3:34 PM
To:
Juliane vonWesterholt
Cc:
Tara Zhang; Sarah Marsh
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] 152 Shanley Street
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hi Juliane,
I am sending you my comments, in your role as lead planner for the development at 152 Shanley Street in Kitchener. I've
copied Tara to indicate I'd like to register for the presentation on the site June 17. Sarah, I've included you as I heard you
would like to know what comments are being submitted by residents.
In my lifetime, Canada and the US have lost 1 in 3 birds. My concern for the development at 152 Shanley is the extent to
which it will be "Bird Safe". As you may know, a growing number of Canadian cities (Ottawa, Markham, Toronto,
Calgary) have guidelines or requirements for bird safe buildings, based on the CSA Bird -Friendly Building Design
Standard. Bird collisions are the second largest cause of bird mortality in Canada, after predation by household and feral
cats. Canadian research estimates that 25 million birds are killed each year as a result of collisions with windows and
other structures.
Glass, whether reflective or clear, is effectively invisible to birds. If windows reflect sky or vegetation, birds perceive only
the reflected image, not the window itself. Any human -built structure that incorporates glass or reflective building
material into the design can cause bird collisions during the day. Artificial light also acts as a threat to birds. Many birds
migrate at night, relying on natural cues for guidance on direction including stars and moonlight. Artificial light can
obscure those natural signals and cause birds to become disoriented or panic, often leading to a collision. Many of the
new developments going up in Waterloo Region will pose a serious risk to our bird population, and the City can and
should take steps to ensure these buildings are made to be bird safe.
Both Shannondale, the developer, and Superkul, the architect have written to me that they are aware of the
requirements to make buildings bird safe, but know Kitchener has no requirements or guidelines in place. Were this
building going up in a city with requirements, it would be designed to not kill birds.
I did a week of "bird patrol" in May, near the end of spring migration, and in 7 days, found 10 birds that struck a building.
6 of these were migratory birds, and one was a species listed as threatened in the Federal Species At Risk legislation.
Kitchener needs to take steps to protect the remaining bird population. I encourage you to recommend bird -safe design
or mitigation measures for the building. There are many resources online to learn more, I recommend birdsafe.ca as a
starting point.
Warm regards
Kathy Mortimer
Page 71 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Tricia Dumais
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2021 12:08 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 152 Shanley Street
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thank you for the invitation for neighbours to address the Neighbourhood Vision Statement items not
reflected in the proposed development. I support development and density and look forward to additional
housing. The drawings do not appear to reflect the actual street size but I do appreciate getting a sense of
what this building will look.like.
I understand from speaking with neighbours that 8 floors rather than 6 floors may not impact the height of the
building as the ceilings will be lower. More floors will likely mean more residents. I was therefore disappointed
to note that there is no ground floor retail, service or community use and no outdoor amenity space for the
neighbourhood. Additional people will mean that there is a need for some of these things.
I am concerned for the people living beside 152 Shanley as the entrance for the parking will mean that they
have traffic entering and exiting the parking garage regularly. A second entrance /exit may be beneficial.
Thank you for the considering our concerns and advocating on our behalf.
Regards,
Tricia Dumais
Page 72 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Elanor Waslander - n>
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2021 3:05 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for 134-152 Shanley Street Development (official version)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Juliane von Westerholt,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the development going in at 134-152 Shanley street. I
am part of a local community group that has some concerns. The names included on this comment all agree
on the requests below and thought sending one email would be more efficient. You may follow up with each
individual or as a group.
Height of building: Our primary concern, by far, is the height of the building. We would request that the
total height of the building be lowered to 5-6 storeys. This is because all the surrounding homes are maximum
3 storey. An eight storey building would tower above the houses and dramatically change the feel of the
neighbourhood. It would also open the door for other taller developments to come into the area. If only one
measure in this list is considered, we would strongly make this our top priority.
Improvement of road safety: The intersections at Duke and Louisa and at Shanley and Duke are incredibly
unsafe. The surrounding intersections are 4 way stops, but these intersections are 2 way stops which is
confusing. This is incredibly dangerous for drivers and pedestrians alike. With the increase in volume
anticipated with this new development, these intersections need to be addressed. Children often cross at these
intersections to get to Duke street park. A traffic light, 4 way stop, or crosswalk flashing light needs to be
added to these two intersections.
Units: We would like to see a portion or all of the units in the building be buy -sell units to encourage long
lasting tenants that will contribute to the vibrant Mount Hope neighbourhood. We would also like to see a
portion be allocated to affordable housing so that the neighbourhood can remain diverse.
Parking: The request for relief from setbacks should be denied because the development only accounts for
0.72 parking spaces per unit. The overflow parking on Shanley will drastically change the flow of traffic in the
area and cause additional issues for road safety. The city will need the extra space to accommodate parking
and foot traffic. We request the alternative of wider sidewalks as seen at the on Louisa leading into King
where a condo is located.
Community green space: Shannondale Development prides itself on being a community -minded developer,
however this plan does not include any new infrastructure for the community. We request that the city and/or
developer anticipate the increase in volume of children, families, young adults and dog -owners to the area and
add a green space to the current project. In lieu of adding it to the existing design, improved infrastructure to
Duke street park (without the removal of established trees) would help provide a healthy green space for the
incoming tenants and owners (this could include: additional seating, splash pad, naturescaping the green
space with native pollinators, naturalized playground features).
Thank you for considering our comments. Please let us know if we can clarify anything shared above.
Sincerely,
Elanor, Carol, Josh, Tanya and Gary
Page 73 of 722
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4V6
June 10, 2021
Ms. von Westerholt,
First of all, I agree that the development of the subject property at 152 Shanley Street should take place.
I'm purposely excluding 134 Shanley Street for the moment and will discuss it below.
As with all the friends and neighbours we know in the area, we are opposed to the proposed building as
recently laid out by the developer. The height is unreasonably high for our neighbourhood of low and
medium rise dwellings, and the number of units proposed is mind-boggling.
We are not opposed to the development, as it has to occur to accommodate the influx of new residents
which will help this city prosper. However, as a city and region, we do need to listen to the constituents
of the affected area. I'm sure that none of the city staff nor elected officials would like the proposed
building within 100m of their residence. Additionally, I would like to know how the proposed building
and 172 units therein will affect the value of my home. I'm fairly certain it will negatively affect any
future sale price. Again, how would city staff or our elected officials react to a decrease in property
value? They wouldn't be happy. This is not nimbyism; this is about maintaining the integrity of our
neighbourhood.
Below are some of my comments referencing specific documents as part of the application to the city.
These are by no means in order of priority.
File 619929_1525hanley_ZBA_App
9. Proposed Zoning By-law Designation Chart
1. The request to allow maximum building height proposed is not acceptable to the neighbourhood. The
charrette held in April 28, 2018, of which I was a part, proposed a building of no greater than 6 stories.
Stahl Ave residents were firmly opposed to even a 6 -storey building. An eight -storey building is not
suitable for this area, Shanley and Duke. The developer's current proposal is more suited to a green field
build, not a build in an existing and established neighbourhood of older homes.
2. Any relief from reducing existing set -backs should not be granted by city staff. If anything they should
be increased. Any set back should be grass and not concrete.
3. As to parking, 0.74 spots is not practical and would cause excessive street parking, of which there is
very little. The assumption that the residents of this proposed structure would not have a vehicle
Page 74 of 722
believe is incorrect. The lack of parking spots is more suitable to Toronto when residents have ample
access to public transit. Not so for Kitchener. Street parking is already an issue with Shanley Street
being narrow to begin with. Parking relief should not be granted. Also, has consideration been given to
eliminating parking on Shanley Street between Duke and Waterloo altogether?
10. Site Conditions Application for Zoning By-law Amendment
b) Demolition of a detached dwelling at 134 Shanley. (Part of Lot 446 Registered Plan 376). This dwelling
is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. It is important to keep this structure as it
represents a home for a family, not a parking lot. The destruction of this structure would be a
disappointment. This house is one of the original dwellings on this part of Shanley Street. If the city is
determined to allow the tear -down, this area should be green space. The fact that the sale of this home
was private between the owner and Shannondale could be an indication of back -room dealing.
g) The construction of an 8 -storey apartment building with 130 single bedroom apartments and the
balance two bedrooms would be better suited to the Toronto area. Shoehorning in that many residents
would overwhelm the existing neighbourhood. The proposal of an apartment complex at 152 Shanley
was not even considered at the charrette. Reducing the number of single bedroom apartments and
increasing the number of multi -bedroom apartments would preferable. Even freehold apartments
would be acceptable. Right now, after 2 decades of recovery from crack houses and derelict buildings,
this neighbourhood is bringing families into the area. Affordable housing, as indicated in the charrette,
is also desirable. Freehold townhouses, like those on Louisa east of Margaret (Victoria Commons) would
be another ideal solution.
Referring back to the charrette again, "any new building [sh]ould enhance the public realm along
Shanley Street" and Stahl and Duke Streets.
Drawing A020
These renderings are misleading in that the elevations provided give a false impression of a low density
neighbourhood, but this is not the case. The omission of the surrounding structures provides a view
biased towards the design of the proposed building. Wide and open streets do not exist on Shanley and
Duke Streets.
Drawing A 030
Provides a good understanding of how the proposed building will cast shadow through the day and at
June and September. I am sure, however, that the residents on Duke Street and Stahl Ave will not be
enthused about a permanent shadow across their yards in the evening and afternoon respectively. This
was brought up in the charrette. I also see this in a petition to Tina Malone -Wright.
Page 75 of 722
Drawing AOSO
In reviewing the ground level plans, I see several points of issue.
1. The location of the vehicle entrance to the proposed building. An entrance off Shanley street is
absolutely a non-starter. The charrette clearly indicated an entrance off Duke Street. The city, this year
and last year, has put "local traffic only" signs on the road for Shanley and Duke. Is this proposed
entrance on Shanley not running counter to the "local traffic only" signs? How is this entrance going to
reduce traffic on Shanley? It will not!
2. What about the proposed closure of Duke Street at Victoria because of the new transit hub
development? Was the resulting change in traffic flow taken into consideration by the city and/or the
developer? And the Duke Street dogleg at Shanley with not one but two stop signs? How does a parking
entrance off Shanley make any sense?
3. The location of the exhaust air venting is not acceptable. Why would this venting be placed within 15
feet of a residence? I would propose that this venting go in the above ground parking area.
File 619929—Transportation Impact, and Transportation Demand Mana and Parking Justification Study
Report 152 Shanley Salvini Consulting March 2021
1 will again refer to the "local traffic only" initiative. How is this intent by the city to reduce traffic on
Shanley and Duke Streets aligning with the "62 and 76 vehicle trips?" The neighbourhood is not suited
to this level of traffic. The authors of this report do not live here and have no feel for suitable levels of
traffic.
The statement of a speed limit of 50km/h is correct but in many cases drivers race to get from stop sign
to the next.
This increase in vehicular traffic is a fatality waiting to happen.
IBI Group Final Report
Section 2.2 Neighbourhood Context
"The subject lands are located within the midtown area of the City of Kitchener, which is an area
comprised mainly of low and medium density residential development."
The proposed building does not fit with this description. The developer's own consultant described this
area perfectly.
I would respectfully request that the city make every possible effort to reject the zoning by-law
amendments and have the developer go back to the drawing board, using the charrette
Page 76 of 722
recommendations as a guide. I also request that the city take note of how it treats its rate payers. An
out -of -city developer has no stake in this city other than monetary, while we as residents have a long-
term interest.
With regards,
David Johnston
Cheryl Massey
cc: Sarah Marsh
Page 77 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Matthew Buckley n>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 2:27 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt; Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development on 152 Shanley
Hi Juliane and Sarah,
I am reaching out to provide some feedback on the Shanley development that is proposed in the neighbourhood right
now. I will be attending the meeting and look forward to hearing how the development plans to intertwine with the
existing community stakeholders.
Development is a priority
- I believe that developing this property is in the best interests of the community, that being said I will get into some
details that I am less enthused about with regard to the current proposal.
1. Amendments to the zoning regulations as set out by the city
- FSR - Maximum suggested is 2.0 and on application this is 3.0
- Height - 24m recommended by the city, proposed at 27.7m
- Parking - 128 spots for 172 units ... 183 is recommended by the city
*Other units in the area have found the current regulations profitable enough to develop and even retrofit. Could you
provide me with an example of a building similar to the one that is being proposed in this area?
2. Housing For All
"Housing has become a key driver of growing socioeconomic inequality, increasing wealth for those who own housing
and driving those who do not into greater debt and poverty."
- 172 Rental Units suggested while neighbourhood consultation suggested 143 Units - 130 are 1 bedroom units (75.6%)
and 42 (24.4%) are two bedroom units
- What are the rental unit prices? If in line with the city's plan, these should be at $1300/month or less
Confusion
Parking seems all wrong - The new Zoning By-law (2019-051) requirement would be 1.0 spaces per unit for residents and
0.10 spaces per unit for visitors for a total of 1.2 spaces per unit or 189 spaces. PARTS Policy doc is 0.9.
--> The proposal includes 128 parking spaces or 0.74 spaces per unit including visitor parking --> 0.64 spaces per unit for
residents.
Bicycles - The document makes it seem as though they are generous by providing 96 bike spots when the current zoning
requests 50% of the 183 required parking spaces according to the Architectural Plan Table.
Overall...
This feels like a great opportunity for the developer if the amendments go through as the profitability of the property
would be maximized. Increase the height, decrease the parking, add more rental units. On the citizen side, this feels like
a gross overreach to ask for amendments to the city developed regulations for a building that is on no major roads and
has other neighborhood condo developments that are profitable within the set regulations.
My guiding questions are WHY do these regulations need to be changed and WHO does it help by changing them?
Neither answer involves the improvement of the community.
Looking forward to the meeting,
Page 78 of 722
Craig Gumart
Froen:
Leila S ,
Sent:
Sunday, June 06, 2021 9:15 PM
To:
Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Input on 134-152 Shanley Street
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
To the city planner's,
We the owners o concerns with the development proposal by Shannondale. When we
purchased our property we had a 4 story unused building with our neighbors a- _ _ a buffer. We would most
likely have not bought our property had there been a building with a parking lot next to it. The old structure was 4
stories tall and built away from our property. Building a structure twice as tall and closer to our property will severely
impact our privacy while using our backyard. We purchased our property in a relatively quiet neighborhood, we do not
like the idea of having potentially dozens of people able to watch us from above while we are trying to enjoy our
backyard. We enjoy a street with quiet calm traffic and adding 172 units would drastically change that. For 2 years the
City of Kitchener has been trying to calm traffic in our area with slow street signs and closed street signs. How would the
addition of this many units affect that program? We appose allowing relief for parking spots, as it will likely just cause
the surrounding streets to end up filled with parked cars.
We have concerns about the noise, dust, and vibration from this development and how it will affect the structural
stability of our 100 plus year old house being built so close to our existing structure. The proposal shows underground
parking vents near the front corner of our house, will this release exhaust fumes near the front windows of our
residence? Also how much noise will these vents produce? Reading through the transportation impact we are quite
upset by the idea of 60-70 cars coming and going at peak morning and evening hour, that is a huge increase in traffic for
our street.
We would like to see no more than 4 stories built to the standard setbacks and density requirements. We would also
require a very tall solid fence for privacy regardless of the size of the new structure from the front of the property to the
rear. We also find that the attached concept images appear stretched and compressed to make the new development
appear lower than a 8 story structure would actually be in our neighbourhood. The view angle of the attached concept
image appears as if it is being viewed from a distance away, not as if someone were to view it from the actual street
corner or sidewalk. The images of the cars on the street show a much wider street than it actually is. This proposed
concept image would be a tower over all the houses in the area. As owners of the now adjoining property we would like
to be able to engage more in discussions with the developer. At this time we have had no direct contact with them. This
development now directly affects our day to day life and we are requesting compensation and understanding of how
this will affect our future life living a
Leila Szasz & Wayne Kropf
1
Page 79 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Ted Parkinson
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 9:1s ANI
To: Juliane vonWesterholt; Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] My comments on 152 Shanley application
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Juliane: I have been writing about this property for over 10 years on our mhbpna.org website. It has been a long and
winding road that brings us here. There were many times that neighbours wondered what disruptive concept the owner
would introduce (like unlicensed businesses), if people were sleeping in the building, or if it was falling apart. It was
strange and exciting to see it finally torn down and to have an experienced developer produce long term plans for
removing the contamination and developing something that looks nice for that location.
I attended the charrette the City of Kithener organized and was pretty happy with how well it was done. The city
presented a very realistic concept of how large a building would be (based on the Midtown Lofts footprint). And this
building's design looks far nicer than that square grey structure. But I know many people did not consider what the
footprint would really be for a building to make money on the investment of removing contamination and building units.
The current size is not surprising for anyone who attended the charrette or reads the city's Vision Statement. And the
design is quite good for reducing shade in the surrounding area. It seems like an excellent design for that spot and
minimizes its impact on the surrounding area.
Shannondale Development has been very responsive to neighbours and held a meeting at city hall and has been good at
engagement. They have also built a very nice fence and supported the mural project which was very positive. I am also
pleasantly surprised they claim the units will be apartments. There is a real lack of apartment space in Kitchener, and in
our neighbourhood.
So in a general sense, this seems like the best outcome we could have imagined: a responsible developer is engaged in
the community and is pushing through the timeline to finally build something positive on that land. I know some people
living close to the structure are upset about how tall it will be, but I think we knew more or less, what size it would be for
years. The city made that clear in the Vision Statement and you can only look around at every other condo development.
The streetscape will change and that is all part of growth and increasing density in the core areas of the city.
Many of us were surprised that the house (134 Shanley) was sold and will be torn down. It is always unfortunate that a
century old house gets razed for the sake of'progress'.One part of Shannondale's Planning Justification and Urban
Design Report rings a little false. The Vision Statement says "The Site's Heritage value will be respected". And their
response is to say that the building had to be torn down and they will reuse some bricks. That may be true, but it
completely ignores the fact they are tearing down a historic house. There are also people in the neighbourhood who
know the history of that house and I would hope the developer might create a plaque to acknowledge that history and
to mark the loss of the house.
My main objection is not to this development in particular, but to the way the city implements traffic studies. I read the
traffic study for this development and everything was fine and, yes, the traffic would be 'within the limits' of our kind of
neighbourhood. But with everything in isolation, ALL these studies say "yep, our development is just fine and fits right
in." The City of Kitchener consistently ignores the other developments around an area and what traffic they might
cause in *combination* with the current proposal. You may have heard about this "Station Park" place going up with
thousands of people scheduled to live there? Wellington will be a major access to it (and to 152 Shanley). I'm sure
Page 80 of 722
people wi,11 exit at Wilhelm and drive along Shanley as Wellington gets more chocked with traffic. You have already
closed Waterloo, and soon Duke will be closed as well, so there will be fewer entry points. i expect to see traffic increase
on Duke from the Waterloo side. And eventually the Transit Hub will start building condos as well. Our neighbourhood
should be a PERMANENT "slow streets" area with a posted (and enforced) 30k speed limit. And the city needs to
change their traffic studies and analysis to include ALL developments in different areas, otherwise you are just hiding
your heads in the sand and hoping problems go away.
Also, I hope Shannondale will consider having one or two spots for 'care share' type of vehicles and also external electric
charging stations.
So, overall I am positive about this development down the street from our house and hope the city can be actively
engaged in minimizing the traffic in our area so we remain a friendly and relatively quiet neighbourhood.
Ted Parkinson
Page 81 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: rick e
Sent: Thursday, May 1 i, 2U21 3:23 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Cc: Coronado
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Official plan amendment application OPA21/002/S/JVW and zoning bylaw
Amendment application ZBA21/004/S/JVW
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Julianne Vonwesterholt,
As the owner and it also being the home I grew up in and having been in my family for 70 years as
well as being one of the most affected property owners to be impacted by these applications. My position is definitely
against this application as submitted.
1) this type of proposed density and building height in a single family home area would take away from the cultural and
heritage significance and look and feel of the area .
This type of proposed development is more suited to a Weber street, King Street, Victoria Street area, not Shanley,
Duke and Wilhelm Streets
2) with 172 units more people would be living on that small site than currently live on twenty plus city blocks around the
proposed development, and with the current city of Kitchener crews installing no through traffic and slow down signage
yearly in the area, this type of density would make a mockery of what is already known about this area.
3) the area has narrow streets and already has a chronic lack of on street parking, this density increase as proposed
would be devastating to the current property owners and their visitors
4) The proposed 8 storey building would eliminate all afternoon and evening sun from my property, casting it in a
virtually perpetual shadow.With winter ice staying on the driveway and sidewalk continuously throughout the cold
season, the streets are so narrow that at times there is only a single lane open after city road crews plow the streets
after a winter snow storm.
5) this type of density and height would also have a significant negative impact on my property value, due to the items
noted above.
I agree with development of the site , however because of the shadow , density,narrow infrastructure ,lack of current
area road parking and the current character of the area ; an 8 storey building is unquestionably out of line , any
development should be limited to not more than one storey higher than the existing homes height which would be 3
storeys, providing 64 or 65 units , with this type of development still at 5 or 6 times current density, there would be
adequate site parking and while increasing density it would generally keep with the character and historical significance
of the blue collar heritage of the single family surrounding homes .
Kind regards
Richard Ejsymont
Sent from my Pad
Page 82 of 722
Craig Dumart
From:
Joanne Carey-Neath -
Sent:
Thursday, May 27, 2021 1:38 PM
To:
Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] OPA 21/002/S/JVW 134-172
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hello Juliane
Re:OPA 21/002/SIJVW 134-152 Shanley St
Please accept this email as an emphatic NO to the request to change the
Official Plan and Zoning bylaw for this property on Shanley.
We have lived in this neighbourhood for 40 years and have seen endless
changes. Some we embraced and others were eyebrow raisers.
This particular property has been an albatross for our neighbourhood and
the City for numerous years with neglect and lack of community pride by
its previous owners and the city. The structure was left to deteriorate to
the point that destruction was necessary. During those years of neglect it
was an eyesore and a safety hazard.
Kitchener is notorious in destroying historical and heritage properties
and neighbourhoods.
At one time the plan was to turn the electrohome 4 story building into an
apartment unit but this was turned down due to lack of parking and the
ability of the infrastructure (roads, water, power)to handle this smaller
project.
We are not opposed to gentrification'of neighbourhoods as long as it is
not solely for gain of the private owner. We would expect that neighbours
would gain some benefits.
In this case adding 172 units 8 stories high appears to be a win(for
owners) - lose (residents) situation.
This building will totally rob the surrounding households of the
character, richness and old neighbourhood charm presently offered to its
residents. It will add so much more congestion, traffic and pressures to
the infrastructure.
At 8 stories high it will dwarf the surrounding houses blocking sun, night
skies, bird paths and will significantly affect the privacy,. landscape and
aesthetics of the surrounding properties.
Mount Hope Breithaupt neighbourhood has accepted its fair share of infill
and it's time to put on the brakes and stop catering to profit seeking
developers.
I vote for this plan to be denied.
Joanne Neath
Patrick Koch
1
Page 83 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Denis Pellerin
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 2:03 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: (EXTERNAL] Proposal for 134-152 Shanley
Hi Juliane. To rehabilitate the old Electrohome property is a great opportunity for our neighbourhood. We live at
personally know the property well and my wife Chris is familiar with it too.
We are in favour of this development.
Denis Pellerin
Chris Balcerczyk
Page 84 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: GERALDINE PAQUETTE
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 6:34 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] re:134-152 Shanley Street
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. I hope I am not to late. I have no interest in seeing a building of that size
going up in our neighborhood. We are a very quiet area with small streets and not much traffic. We raise our kids and
walk our dogs without fear. A building of that size would overwhelm our small streets bringing way to much traffic and
congestion. There are no buildings of that size in this area. We all live in private homes. Many of us including myself are
older and want to be able to enjoy our retirement without loud noise and traffic.
r,oralriine Paquette
Page 85 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: meredith
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 20214:58 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 134-152 Shanley Street Plan and Zoning Application
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Juliane -
Just wanted to ensure you've received this correspondence -
Sorry to bother,
Meredith
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 6:04 PM meredith wrote:
Hi Juliane -
My name is Meredith Pope and I reside (owner) at vly property will back onto
the proposed residential building at the address above (on its west side).
I support a residential building at the site in question, under a R8 re -zoning for the 152 Shanley property only. I
understand the challenges in place with the remediation of the site.
I have several concerns regarding the 2 applications (OPA21/002/S/JVW and ZBA21/004/S/JVW), for simplicity I have
listed them below:
1. Re -zoning of the 134 Shanley residential property will eliminate a well-maintained long standing single family
century home, to create a paved driveway. This is not consistent with the goals of our community.
2. Parking ratio, and density/massing of units -- the modification of the proposed R8 plan is excessive
- the FSR increase to 3 and the DRASTICALLY poor parking ratio of 0.74 parking spaces / unit is unacceptable
- parking as per the R8 zoning is 220 spaces vs the 128 proposed. Although I am optimistic regarding the transit hub and
use of cycling/walking etc -- almost 100 fewer spots than mandated by current zoning woefully provides for the
proposed tenants -- I would expect this will lead to marked street parking on our neighbourhood roads which will
impact our own use of these street spots and also increase vehicular traffic in our area (ie down our dead end street)
- adding > 172 new residents to our low density residential community will have a vast impact on our community with
minimal additional value (no retail on floor 1, removal of trees, no public spaces we can access and the impact of > 172
new residents on our small local parks and trails).
- majority single bedroom rental units: I expect this will lead to a high proportion of short term rentals/airbnbs and
possibly high turn -over of tenants who may not value or contribute to our community to the same degree as
families/longer term owners. I am concerned about the "upkeep" of the terraces/patios etc
Height of building
- both a modification to the zoning (to R8) AND an additional allowance to 27m seems excessive in the heart of a
residential community. Although the step backs are visually appealing, adding private terraces simply change the
means by which renters will now look into our backyards, and these terraces increase the risk of tenant noise and eye -
Page 86 of 722
sore issues (laundry/bikes/storage). Can you provide examples of other residential areas where this zoning exception
has been provided? I feel the height of the building, even in its "L shape" is excessive and an undue impact on the
privacy of our backyards and impact on shadows of our yards.
- as the community had previously expressed, a building height of 6 standard stories in an L shape with the bulk
towards the Shanley/Duke intersection would be an acceptable balance of the developers challenges/financial goals
and impact on our properties
4. Traffic Study and Safety of Duke/Shanley intersection
- the traffic study was completed during the provincial "Emergency Lockdown" measures due to the ongoing COVID
pandemic. At this time there were also multiple signs in the area (ie: on Waterloo St, Duke St, Wilhelm) indicating the
roads were closed to local traffic only. I do not expect these factors have resulted in a reliable traffic study, and the
conclusions drawn from this study would not be reliable in their interpretation. I am significantly concerned with the
true impact of this development on our traffic volumes post -pandemic.
- given the unusual nature of the Duke/Shanley intersection (limited visibility for traffic travelling on Duke towards
Wilhem, stop for traffic only on Shanley, unfortunately the speed at which vehicles travel on Duke) I would be
concerned for pedestrian safety at this intersection with increased traffic. Is there consideration being given to modify
this intersection (ie 3 way stop)?
5. Transformer location
- as per plans a large "transformer" will be located immediately adjacent to the back of our lot. What information can
you provide regarding the noise this will cause, and the height of this structure and any possible odour/gas production?
The provided noise assessment references only a belt drive exhaust fan, a cooler and a generator.
6. Tree removal
- the removal of the significant canopy at the rear aspect of the lot will serve to further impact the privacy of our
backyards. I appreciate the effort made to avoid damage to trees and also compensate for tree loss for properties
affected, however these measures cannot ameliorate the impact a 27m height building would have on our privacy.
Questions
- What is the proposed timeline of site construction?
- The proposal package makes reference to both a Shanley and Duke street vehicle access. It is unclear how removal of
the Duke street access (as per drawings) will impact the conclusions drawn in the traffic study/wind study etc.
- Will there be a plan for parking for the numerous construction vehicles and personal vehicles of workers on site?
I will attend the June 17th "Neighbourhood meeting" but would also like to be added to your contact list for any
updates regarding this property moving forward.
Thank you for your consideration -
Meredith Pope
Page 87 of 722
Craig Dumartr
From:
Dawn Parker >
Sent:
Thursday, May 20, 2021 10:56 AM
To:
Juliane vonWesterholt
Cc:
Sarah Marsh
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Some brief official comments on 152/134 Shanely proposal
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hi Julianne,
Thanks for the information. I'm sure I will have more detailed comments later and will read the full proposal, but in the
short run, as the clock is ticking for you, here are a few comments:
1) 1 strongly oppose the re -zoning of 134 to R8, but suggest it be kept as R6 with the special provision related to try-
plexes lifted.
2). The cultural heritage character of the neighbourhood, per the city's report and stated intention to include the
cultural heritage neighbourhood in the secondary plan revision, needs to be acknowledged. 134 Shanley has cultural
heritage value in this context. We all know that the neighbourhood is the second oldest in Kitchener and that they
Region official plan and the city's previous verbal and written commitments state that stable residential neighbourhoods
are not the target for intensification. Approval of the rezoning and subsequent demolition of 134 Shanley would
contradict these points.
3). The surface parking should not be allowed, or if allowed, should be minimal. The area is now part of a major transit
station planning area, where automobile -dependent uses are not appropriate per Provincial guidelines. There will be a
large underground lot, and on -street parking (which could be further regulated) is available on neighbourhood streets.
Let us be honest about what is happening. A good condition, large Century home on a parcel that could now house 4
households and has multiple mature trees is being demolished to build a surface parking lot. This not only contradicts
Provincial planning guidelines, it contradicts the Region and City's climate change emergency and ambitious greenhouse
gas reduction goals. Everyone on council acknowledges these goals, and the need to reduce our 45% of emissions
related to transportation is often a point of discussion at Council.
4). Naively, I thought the vision creating a quantified design, and that the city would support any design that conformed
with the FSR, setbacks, and height of the development. For instance we had back and forth about the setback to 134
Shanley, which was changed to 7.5 meters after my feedback. Although I would continue to oppose the surface parking,
I would support a development and appropriate rezoning that allowed the developer to build to right on that rezoning,
that conformed to the FSR, setback, and height of the vision drawings on 152 Shanley.
5). The current location of the driveway and driveway vent seem designed to maximally impact the remaining neighbour
Brenda, at I think 126 Shanley. The driveway location absolutely contradicts the vision. The action is consistent with an
intention to degrade her quality of life and encourage her to sell to the developer.
6). Your clock to respond to the development re LPAT appeals should be set to start only when signs are posted in front
of both 134 and 152 Shanley.
Page 88 of 722
7). While it is outside the current planning mandate, it is very strange that there are no 3 bedroom rentals planned at
the site. I have data from the local CMHC economist showing their scarcity and therefore relative profitability in
Kitchener centre. Further, 3 beds can mean more people per area and lower overall parking requirements relative to a
development of all 1-2 bed units. We all know that Kitchener and WR region as a whole are way ahead of the pack in
intensification. But we will only succeed if units are built that can house families with children in the core. Therefore
"intensification targets" should NOT be accepted as an argument in favour of the demolition of 134 Shanley.
I would like to send comments directly to the developer, to give them enough time to respond, and also to consider an
alternative vision for the property that would preserve the house and allow them to build additional units, and also
make more money from improved green space premia. Do you have preferred contact at Shannondale for this proposal?
Also, yes, the comparison table to the vision would be overwhelming helpful, not only for me but for other neighbours
who have brought up the question. It would need to acknowledge that because the development footprint has
expanded, the FSR comparisons would need to be supplemented by some overall volume comparisons.
Thanks,
Dawn Parker
On May 19, 2021, at 12:04 PM, Juliane vonWesterholt <Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hello Dawn,
Here is the plan that is part of the arborist's report. I hope this plan helps.
The sign should have been installed by now and I have reached out to the applicant in this regard.
The existing zoning for 134 Shanley is R5 with Special Use Regulation 129 U which prohibits triplexes. I
am not aware of what the sale price was or when it was sold.
I trust this answers your questions.
Sincerely,
Juliane vonWesterholt, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
-----Original Message -----
From: Dawn Parker
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 20216:04 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt <Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchen er.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Please provide comparisons to the city's guidelines for Electrohome
The arborist report also references trees by number but does not seem to include a key. Where is the
key found?
Are signs announcing the OPA and secondary plans amendment proposals not also required in front of
both 152 shanley and 134 Shanley?
Finally what is the current zoning for 134 Shanley? And is it possible to access the sold price and date for
Page 89 of 722
that parcel?
Thanks very much,
Dawn Parker
Sent from my Wad
On May 15, 2021, at 8:28 AM, Dawn Parker - )o.ca> wrote:
Hello Juliane,
Could you please send a table with the guidelines put forward by the city in terms of
metrics like height, setbacks, floor space ratio, green space, and anything else specified
for the proposed Shannondale development, comparing the guidelines put forward by
the city to the proposed development?
Since the point of neighbourhood engagement was to set these guidelines before the
development occurred we trust that the proposed development is compliant but it
would be helpful for neighbourhood discussions to have the comparison on paper.
If you reply to me I will then distribute the information to our two neighbourhood lists.
Thanks,
Dawn Parker
Se
Page 90 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Juliane vonWesterholt
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 1:34 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley St
From: Kyle Grey
Sent: Friday, May 28, 20219:44 AM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt <Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley St
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the proposed development at 134-152 Shanley St. I live at 406 Duke St West, directly across
the street from the building.
First, I would like to say that I am in full support of development on this lot. I wish they had kept the beautiful facade of
the electrohome building, but nonetheless I am glad that something is being done.
I would however like to express my strong opposition to the scale of this building. In all directions the surrounding
homes are 2 stories tall. This building does not need to be 4 times that! Not only will my property never see the sun
again, it does not fit the neighbourhood. I am not saying that it needs to be 2 stories, but I feel there needs to be more
of a consideration for the site and at 8 stories, this is not the case.
Kyle Grey
N
Page 91 of 722
Craig Dumart
From:
Juliane vonWesterholt
Sent:
Friday, June 11, 2021 1:35 PM
To:
Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject:
FW: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley St zoning comments
From: Maggie Modesti <
Sent: Monday, May 17, 20218:38 AM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt <Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley St zoning comments
Hello Juliane,
My name is Maggie Modesti and my family and I reside at ;il address is
is email address "
Thank you for getting the input from the residing resiaemi ,.
We could NOT be more opposed to the plans for an 8 story high rise in our quiet community.
First of all, as a mother of little children, I am highly concerned for the safety of my kids and the children in the
neighborhood that the huge influx of residents in the area would threaten.
Duke street park which has been valued by the local residents and young family here as one of the safest and cleanest
parks in the area, tucked away from lots of traffic and easily accessible to local families, will no doubt be completely
saturated with people with the increase in families in the area.
We are concerned that a large high rise will also increase the risk of drug use and drug paraphernalia (used needles for
instance) in the park and make park use less safe.
As well, this neighborhood is composed of older residents and very young families who highly value respectful and quiet
neighbors. A massive high rise would obviously increase the amount of noise in the area and be detrimental to this
community who needs quiet.
In conclusion, we believe a high rise being built here will jeopardize the emotional, social, and physical well-being of our
community and we ask that the plans for a high rise be prevented for the good of this community.
Thanks,
Maggie+the Modesti Family
Page 92 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Juliane vonWesterholt
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 1:36 PM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley Street West
From: Nick Richbeli
Sent: Thursday, May 1i, Lul'1 1:ub Vivi
To: Juliane vonWesterholt <Juliane.vonWesterholt@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley Street West
Dear Juliane,
I write in response to your letter dated May 10, 2021 with respect to the requested permission to develop an 8 -storey
building with a total of 172 residential dwelling units.
We do not agree with this project.
This will destroy our neighborhood.
Traffic is already a serious concern. There is no parking. The local park is neglected. We do NOT need 172 new condos in
this area. This will not bring anything good to the neighborhood.
How many new condo buildings does this city need? What kickbacks will the city be taking to approve this project? It's
about time the City put its foot down and did what's right for its citizens!!
Nicholas Richbell
1
Page 93 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Grant Gingrich
Sent: Friday, June 15, zuz i iu:53 AM
To: Craig Dumart
Cc: Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback: 134-152 Shanley Proposal
Hello Craig,
I understand you are picking up this file and are accepting submissions from residents as input to any decision by the
City. Unfortunate that you were unable to join last night's virtual neighbourhood meeting. The following is a summary of
my comments from last night which were not recorded:
Briefly, on the development itself...
* I think it's a good thing if someone from outside the region wants to perform the needed environmental cleanup and
invest in purpose-built rental housing in Kitchener.
* I think the proposed design elements are pleasing to the eye and will fit well within the neighbourhood. Far more so than
the derelict factory that was previously on site, though it is unfortunate that the factory was permitted to get to that state in
the first place.
* I do believe 8 storeys and 172 units is probably too much density to be plunking into the middle of a quiet single family
residential neighbourhood and that a greater proportion of 2 and 3 bedroom units are needed - but I'll leave it to others to
push for change on those points.
My main concern relates to traffic as follows...
* In addition to Shanley and Duke, there is a 3rd street that is directly affected by the proposed development. Wilhelm
Street abuts the site and yet not once during last night's presentation did anyone mention it.
* Wilhelm is also a quiet single family residential street crossing Weber where the Spur Line Trail ends, next to George
Lippert Park, and having the misfortune of being a straightaway between Duke and Margaret.
* My neighbours and I see and hear them... morning, noon and night, Northbound cars and trucks blow through Wilhelm
above the speed limit, often failing to come to a complete stop at stop signs, in order to get to Margaret, to Wellington and
to the expressway; without having to make the left from Weber onto Wellington and deal with congestion on Wellington in
that stretch.
* Coming in the opposite direction, we have the same problem. This is presumably from residents of the new Victoria
Common site (as the problem has gotten worse since the completion of that development) trying to get to Weber, Victoria
and Downtown.
* And now Wilhelm could be sandwiched between a second high density development...
* A number of my neighbours have small children and I worry one day one of those cars travelling above the limit won't be
able to stop in time for a child simply being a child. To be clear, Wilhelm is CURRENTLY in need of traffic calming / traffic
reducing measures.
* Now, 134-152 Shanley sits directly at the top of Wilhelm and Wilhelm will be the path of least resistance for that address
in and out of the neighbourhood - especially since I think I heard last night that Duke at Victoria will be permanently closed
off? Furthermore, Wilhelm between Weber and Margaret will be the path of least resistance for that address to and from
the expressway.
* ANY development, whether it's 8, 6 or 2 storeys is going to exacerbate the existing problems of traffic volume and
reckless, high speed driving on Wilhelm; putting pedestrians headed to George Lippert Park, cyclists coming off the Spur
Line Trail, and young children in particular, at even greater risk than they are at today.
* Again, I do not oppose the development, but a COMPLETE plan that addresses current and future volume and safety
needs on Wilhelm needs to be in scope.
Counterpoints from the City to my concerns last night would include the following...
* The development has an application for reduced car and added bicycle parking. There are two flaws with this
response: 1) There will still be more cars in the neighbourhood and more cars can only exacerbate the problem, and 2) I
suspect the demographic targeted for these one bedroom units will be more frequent users of ride sharing and Skip the
Page 94 of 722
Dishes which does nothing to allay my fears if not make them worse (is use of these types of services even taken into
account by the City when reviewing traffic implications of a new development?).
* I can't remember the exact words, but a traffic study was conducted and something was said last night about the 85th
percentile and most drivers travelling in the neighbourhood at 47 km/h. I have three issues with this response: 1) Bell
curving traffic study results is a flawed approach - you have to look at the extremes and at the consistency and trend of
the behaviour, 2) Did the traffic study look at Wilhelm (which is a tempting straightaway) or at Duke / Shanley / Waterloo
Streets only?, and 3) If traffic is as safe as the City claims it is, why has the City recently found it necessary to install traffic
calming flex signs all up and down Waterloo Street? There are no such measures North of Weber.
Wilhelm is a residential street but increasingly it is being used as an artery. Unless action is taken, the problem will only
get worse with this proposal resulting in high density developments at both ends of Wilhelm. I hope the City takes my
concerns seriously and implements a complete plan that addresses both current and future volume and safety needs, that
maintains the character of Wilhelm as a quiet single family residential neighbourhood, and that an accident or tragedy
doesn't have to occur for something to be done.
Thank you,
Grant Gingrich
Page 95 of 722
Craig Dumart
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Saturday, May 22, 2021 5:55 PM
Juliane vonWesterholt
[EXTERNAL] 134-152 shanley st
Follow up
Flagged
Hi Juliane,
am resident of the community. It is a good idea to change the property to all residential units. I am looking forward to
seeing the project as soon as possible. thanks
xing
Page 96 of 722
Craig Dumart
From:
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2uzi 8:36 AM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley St zoning comments
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Juliane,
My name is Maggie Modesti and my family and I reside a' !r. Our email address is
_ this email address
Thank you for getting the input from the residing residents.
We could NOT be more opposed to the plans for an 8 story high rise in our quiet community.
First of all, as a mother of little children, I am highly concerned for the safety of my kids and the children in the
neighborhood that the huge influx of residents in the area would threaten.
Duke street park which has been valued by the local residents and young family here as one of the safest and cleanest
parks in the area, tucked away from lots of traffic and easily accessible to local families, will no doubt be completely
saturated with people with the increase in families in the area.
We are concerned that a large high rise will also increase the risk of drug use and drug paraphernalia (used needles for
instance) in the park and make park use less safe.
As well, this neighborhood is composed of older residents and very young families who highly value respectful and quiet
neighbors. A massive high rise would obviously increase the amount of noise in the area and be detrimental to this
community who needs quiet.
In conclusion, we believe a high rise being built here will jeopardize the emotional, social, and physical well-being of our
community and we ask that the plans for a high rise be prevented for the good of this community.
Thanks,
Maggie+the Modesti Family
Page 97 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Kyle Grey
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 9:44 AM
To: Juliane vonWesterholt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 134-152 Shanley St
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the proposed development at 134-152 Shanley St. I live at
the street from the building.
First, I would like to say that I am in full support of development on this lot. I wish they had kept the beautiful facade of
the electrohome building, but nonetheless I am glad that something is being done.
I would however like to express my strong opposition to the scale of this building. In all directions the surrounding
homes are 2 stories tall. This building does not need to be 4 times that! Not only will my property never see the sun
again, it does not fit the neighbourhood. I am not saying that it needs to be 2 stories, but I feel there needs to be more
of a consideration for the site and at 8 stories, this is not the case.
Kyle Grey
Page 98 of 722
Craig Dumart
From: Michael Brisson
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 12:42 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 152 Shanley
Hi Craig,
My attached message to SM was a heads up to her that is of equal importance to your department. The negative fallout
from the surprise demolition of a fine adjacent home will have lasting impact in the community. Equally, responding to a
small coterie of residents such as the resident who mythologized a huge traffic problem on Wilhelm at the last Zoom
meeting will lead to an unneeded anti -density reaction from the broader neighborhood when they see the house go
down & the proposed vehicle entry in operation.
A scheme which retains the house & adds a new 3 storey volume extending its side walls back to the rear setback with
single aspect and entries facing the project's rear open space is an obvious alternative that needs to be weighed
carefully in this precarious situation for the city.
If you do have time to discuss further please call.
Thanks
Michael
Sent from my Phone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: June 17, 2021 at 3:37:07 PM EDT
To: Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca
Subject: 152 Shanley
Hi Sarah,
I hope this finds you well.
I want to pass on to you what I believe to be very justified concerns expressed to me earlier this week by
The sale & demolition oss from them & the expansion of the project along
Shanley is a big concern to them. It is very much underplayed in the documentation presented & will
come as a shock to many members of the neighbourhood. Be that as it may - the decision to have only
one entry to the site, contrary to the expressed guidelines for Urban Design set out by the city, and
especially the use of one major vehicle entry point further along Shanley rather than on Duke opposite,
Wilhelm is a major problem.
This building will be very evident above the low homes and very visible from Weber, and traffic to and
from it will be coming and going from Weber via Wilhelm. To place the major vehicle entry deep into the
quiet surroundings around the tricky corner of Duke and Shanley is both disruptive and dangerous. The
Page 99 of 722
visual effect of the garage entry elevation upon Shanley seen across the front yards and the view into
the parking area to the rear is going to be very unattractive.
Anything you can do to correct this situation ( I know it is very very difficult to divert these development
juggernauts ;) ) would result in a much better final result and resident reaction to the final built project.
Cheers - and thanks for all you do in these very difficult planning and urban design situations.
Michael
Sent from my Wad
Page 100 of 722