HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2022-03-07Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
Agenda
Monday, March 7, 2022, 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
Electronic Meeting
Due to COVID-19 and recommendations by Waterloo Region Public Health to exercise physical
distancing, City Hall is open for select services. Members of the public are invited to participate in this
meeting electronically by accessing the meeting live -stream video at kitchener.ca/watchnow.
While in-person delegation requests are not feasible at this time, members of the public are invited to
submit written comments or participate electronically in the meeting by contacting
delegation@kitchener.ca. Please refer to the delegations section on the agenda below for registration
deadlines. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public
record.
Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance
to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.
Chair: Councillor D. Chapman
Vice -Chair: Councillor P. Singh
Pages
1. Commencement
2. Consent Items
The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be
approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in
each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as
under this section.
2.1. None.
3. Delegations
Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address
the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. Delegates must register by
4:00 p.m. on March 7, 2022, in order to participate electronically.
3.1. Public Hearing Matter Report DSD -2022-062, listed as Item 5.1
3.1.a.
Chris Pidgeon, GSP Group agent
3.1.b.
Darryl Firsten, IN8 Developments
3.2. Public Hearing Matter Report DSD -2022-089, listed as item 5.2
3.2.a.
Andrea Sinclair, MHBC Planning
3.2.b.
Jane Desbarats
3.2.c.
Alice Raynard
3.2.d.
Elizabeth Stevens
3.2.e.
Heather Love
4. Discussion Items
4.1. None.
5. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act (6:00 p. m. advertised)
This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act.
If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City
of Kitchener before the proposed applications are considered, the person or
public body may not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land
Tribunal and may not be added as a party to a hearing of an appeal before the
Ontario Land Tribunal.
5.1. 30 Francis Street South Official Plan 90 m
Amendment OPA/21/001/R/DE and Zoning By-
law Amendment ZBA21/002/F/DE - DSD -2022-
062
(Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter.)
5.2. 890-900 King Street West Official Plan 120 m
Amendment OPA21/005/K/BB and Zoning By-
law Amendment ZBA21/008/K/BB - DSD -2022-
089
(Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter.)
6. Information Items
6.1. Quarterly Development Applications Update 2022 01 - DSD -2022-096
7. Adjournment
Daniela Mange
Committee Administrator
W
151
240
Page 2 of 256
StaliBeport
J
IKgc.;i' r� R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: March 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 9
DATE OF REPORT: January 31, 2022
REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-062
SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment OPA/21/001/F/DE
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/21/002/F/DE
30 Francis Street South
30 Francis Kitchener Incorporated
RECOMMENDATION:
That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA/21/001/F/DE for 30 Francis Kitchener
Incorporated requesting a Specific Policy Area be refused; and
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/002/F/DE for 30 Francis Kitchener
Incorporated be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 11,
attached to Report DSD -2022-062 as Appendix `A'; and further
That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4), applications for minor variances
shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application
ZBA21 /002/F/DE.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding a
Zoning By-law Amendment application for a property located at 30 Francis Street South. It is
planning staffs recommendation that the Zoning By-law be approved.
Community engagement included:
o circulation of a preliminary notice letter to property owners and residents within 240
metres of the subject site;
o installation of a large billboard notice sign on the property;
o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public;
o two Neighbourhood Information Meetings held on June 2, 2021 and December 14,
2021);
o notice letter advising of the statutory 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 Meetings;
o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on February 11, 2022.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 3 of 256
This report supports the delivery of core services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Planning staff is recommending refusal of the requested Official Plan Amendment and approval of a
revised Zoning By-law Amendment application to add Special Regulation Provision 776R in Zoning
By-law 85-1 to permit a 44 storey mixed use development with an increased Floor Space Ratio
(FSR), a reduced rear yard building setback and a Holding Provision to require remediation of the
site contamination and to require an updated noise study. As part of this development the applicant
is seeking to obtain an increase in floor space ratio in exchange for the provision of community
benefits in accordance with the bonusing provisions of Section 17.E.17 of the City of Kitchener's
Official Plan. Density bonusing is permitted in the Official Plan (and under Section 37 of the Planning
Act) for properties within the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). Staff recommends that the Zoning
By-law Amendment application be approved
BACKGROUND:
The City of Kitchener has received a revised development concept from 30 Francis Kitchener
Incorporated (IN8 Developments) that is proposing to permit an increased Floor Space Ratio in
exchange for the provision of community benefits in accordance with the bonusing provisions of
Section 17. E.17 of the Official Plan.
The original Official Plan Amendment application was proposing to add a Specific Policy Area to
increase the Floor Space Ratio to 18.3. As community benefits are being proposed through the
revised Zoning By-law Amendment for 30 Francis Street South, the Official Plan Amendment is no
longer required.
The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application is requesting to add Special Regulation
Provision 776R in Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit residential uses, reduce the rear yard setback and
to allow for an increased floor space ratio of 18.3 to be achieved through the use of bonusing
provisions, as well as to apply Holding Provision 90H and also to require site contamination
remediation and an updated noise study.
The lands are within the Urban Growth Centre, designated `Innovation District' in the City of
Kitchener Official Plan and are zoned 'as Warehouse District Zone (D-6)' in Zoning By-law 85-1.
Existing Warehouse District Zone (D-6) zoning permissions include:
• Commercial and light industrial uses;
• Maximum floor space ratio of 2.0;
• Rear yard setback of 7.5 metres; and
• Maximum front yard setback of 2.0 metres.
Site Context
The subject lands are addressed as 30 Francis Street South and are situated within the City of
Kitchener's Downtown. The subject lands are located at the easterly side of the block bound by
Charles Street West, Francis Street South and Halls Lane. The subject property has a lot area of
0.23 hectares (0.57 acres) with 54.8 metres of frontage along Francis Street South and 42.2 metres
of frontage along Charles Street West. 30 Francis Street South is currently a vacant parcel of land
which was formerly used as a surface parking lot. The subject lands directly abut the surface parking
lot of the U -Haul commercial property located to the west of the subject lands. The surrounding
neighbourhood consists of a variety of uses including high rise mixed-use, commercial, buildings,
medium rise residential, and institutional office buildings. Existing surrounding lands are used for
Page 4 of 256
surface parking lots and old large industrial buildings which either have been converted to loft style
office, residential and other viable uses.
7
ell
41
A
a
4;
BJECT � �
icy �o
m, 4 1 "A
�P
Km,
ik
Figure 1 - Location Map: 30 Francis Street South
REPORT:
The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with a 44 storey, mixed use building,
consisting of 532 residential units, 3 ground floor commercial units and amenity uses located at
grade, with a roof top terrace on the 7' level, and 241 parking spaces located underground and
internal to the building. The proposed building includes a square footprint that has been oriented
along Charles Street East, Francis Street South and Halls Lane West. Ground floor commercial units
are located along the Charles Street frontage, and building amenities are located along Francis
Street and wrap along the Halls Lane building fagade. The principal entrance to the building is
located in the southeast corner of the building at the intersection of Charles Street East and Francis
Street South. The proposed 44 storey mixed use building is located adjacent to the Lang Tannery
building, which has been converted to office and technology related uses. The proposed
development includes a 6 storey podium (base) which is sensitive in scale, massing and comparable
to the height of the Tannery building.
Through the processing of the application, a revised development proposal was prepared. The
original development proposed a multiple residential building comprised of 532 dwelling units (1 and
2 bedrooms only) with 242 parking spaces and one floor of underground parking. In response to
comments provided by Planning staff and the public, the applicant has amended the proposed
development and is now proposing to develop a mixed-use building with a mix of residential unit
types and increase in the floor space ratio in exchange for the provision of community benefits in
accordance with the bonusing provisions of Section 17.E.17 of the Official Plan and Section 37 of
Page 5 of 256
the Planning Act. Table 1 below provides a comparison of the development concepts and Figures 2
and 3 show the floor plan and a rendering of the revised development proposal.
Table 1. Development Concept Comparison Table
Page 6 of 256
Original Development Concept
Revised Development Concept
Number of Units
532 residential units
532 residential units
Parking Spaces
242 spaces
241 Spaces
Underground Parking
1 Level
2 Levels
Levels
Bicycle Parking
135 Class A
148 Class A
6 Class B
6 Class B
Ground floor
0 commercial units, Blank fagade
3 commercial units located along
Commercial Units
located along Charles Street East
Charles Street East.
Unit Types
Bachelor units (10)
(191) 1 bedroom units
1 bedroom units (304)
(194) 1 bedroom + den units
1 bedroom + den units (99)
(137) 2 bedroom units
2 bedroom units (119)
(5) 2 bedroom + den units
5 3 bedroom units
Electric Vehicle
Not included
20 Electric Vehicle parking spaces
Parking
provided
Parkland
Not included
Included (Redesign, tender, and
Enhancement
reconstruct Francis Green)
Affordable Housing
Not included
Included ($300,000 donation to
Donation
affordable housing)
LEED Standards
Not included
The development will be designed
Building Design
to incorporate LEED standards.
Barrier Free
80 units (15% required by the
101 units (19% of the units)
Accessible Units
Building Code)
Page 6 of 256
Figure 2 — Revised Development Concept Ground Floor Plan
Figure 3 — Revised Development Elevation Intersection of Charles Street and Francis Street
Page 7 of 256
The revised development concept includes significant changes in direct response to public and staff
comments. The revised proposed development includes a mixed-use building, a broader mix of unit
types (including five larger 3 bedroom units and five 2 bedroom plus den units), additional bicycling
parking, and commercial units located at grade designed to activate the street and enhance the
public realm. Furthermore, Planning staff are recommending that the proposed increase in Floor
Space Ratio be permitted in exchange for the provision of community benefits. Planning staff are
recommending this in accordance with the bonusing provisions of Section 17.E.17 of the Official
Plan and Section 37 of the Planning Act. The community benefits provided as part of the revised
development include the following: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures, Dwelling
Units in the Urban Growth Centre, Water and Energy conservation measures, Parkland
Improvements, LEED-inspired building design, Electric Vehicle Parking stalls, and Barrier Free
Accessible Units beyond the building code requirement. In addition, the developer has proposed an
affordable housing sponsorship. Staff is supportive of the proposed revised development concept.
To facilitate the redevelopment of 30 Francis Street South with the proposed development concept,
a Zoning By-law Amendment is proposed to change the zoning of the subject lands. The lands are
currently designated `Innovation District' in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned `Warehouse
District Zone (D-6)' in Zoning By-law 85-1.
The owner is proposing to change the zoning to `Warehouse District Zone (D-6) with Special
Regulation Provision 776R and Holding Provision 90H' in Zoning By-law 85-1, to permit residential
uses, reduce the rear yard setback and increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) through the use of
bonusing provisions. A Holding Provision is also proposed to be added to the property to prevent
the development of the site with sensitive uses, including residential uses, until the site
contamination has been remediated and a revised noise study is completed to the satisfaction of the
Region of Waterloo.
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 cycling networks, multiple parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial
policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed mixed-use development
represents an attainable form of market-based housing with a mix of unit types.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application will facilitate
the intensification of the subject property with a mixed -used development that is compatible with the
surrounding community and will make efficient use of the existing infrastructure. The proposed
development will create more housing options in the downtown within walking distance to jobs. No
Page 8 of 256
new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff have
confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit this amount of intensification on the
subject lands.
Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan):
The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed
to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range
and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit
viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth
areas including Urban Growth Centres and major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus
for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure.
Policies 2.2.3 1 (a) and (d) identifies that Urban Growth Centres will be planned as focal areas for
investment in regional public service facilities, as well as commercial, recreational, cultural, and
entertainment uses and that Urban Growth Centres plan to accommodate significant population and
employment growth.
Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of
the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of
housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet
projected needs of current and future residents.
Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will:
a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and
convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities;
b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all
ages, abilities, and incomes;
c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units
and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate
the needs of all household sizes and incomes;
d) expand convenient access to:
i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and
convenient use of active transportation;
ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs;
iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and
other recreational facilities; and
iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture;
e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open
spaces;
f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and
g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development.
The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher
density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can
provide access to transit and other amenities.
The subject lands are located within the City's delineated Urban Growth Centre (UGC), and within a
Major Transit Station Area (MTSA)in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's OP on Map 2 —
Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for the Central Station. Urban Growth
Centres plan to accommodate significant population and employment growth. The Region of
Page 9 of 256
Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review (ROPR) project and as part of that work,
revised MTSA boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council. These lands are located within the
Regionally endorsed MTSA boundary. The proposed development represents intensification and
will help the City achieve density targets in the MTSA. The proposed zoning will support a higher
density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails
and transit. The mixed use development is also proposed to include several unit types that vary in
sizes, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents.
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 UGC 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 application or to higher
density within the MTSA area and Urban Growth Centre of the Region as the type of high-density
development proposed on site supports the Planned Community Function of the ROP. (Appendix
`D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the ROP.
City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP)
The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further
articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are
set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive,
safe, complete and healthy community.
Official Plan policy 17.E.12.6 of the OP notes that the City will consider all applications to amend the
Zoning By-law and will provide notice of such application in accordance with the provisions and
regulations of the Planning Act.
Urban Structure
The OP establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing
growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-
up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment
for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre (UGC),
Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section
3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within the UGC. The UGC (Downtown) is
the primary Urban Structure Component and Intensification Area. The planned function of the UGC
is to accommodate a significant share of the Region's and City's future population and employment
growth. Section 3.C.2.13 of the OP indicates that the UGC is planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier,
a minimum density of 225 residents and jobs combined per hectare and assist in achieving the
minimum residential intensification target identified in Policy 3.C.1.6. The UGC is planned to be a
vibrant Regional and Citywide focal point and destination and is intended to be the City's primary
focal point for residential intensification as well as for investment in institutional and Region -wide
public services, commercial, office, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses.
The site is also within the Central Station Area and within 400 metres of both the Central and Victoria
Park ION stops. In accordance with Policy 3.C.2.17 of the OP, the planned function of the MTSAs is
Page 10 of 256
to provide densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and
commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -
friendly and transit -oriented.
Policies also require that development applications in MTSAs give consideration to the Transit -
Oriented Development (TOD) policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the OP. Generally, the TOD
policies support a compact urban form, that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by
providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit
service and optimize transit rider convenience. These policies also support developments which
foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public
realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area
well served by nearby transit and rapid transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and
provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that
not only complies with the City's policies for the UGC and MTSA but also contributes to the vision
for a sustainable and more environmentally friendly city.
Land Use Desianation
The subject lands are designated `Innovation District' (Map 4, Urban Growth Centre) in the City of
Kitchener Official Plan. The Innovation District is characterized by a mix of high rise and medium
residential, mixed use, commercial and office buildings and old large industrial buildings which either
have been converted to loft style office, residential and other viable uses or have the potential to do
so. This area of the city is expected to evolve and transform into a dense urban contemporary setting
with continued growth in the high-tech industry coupled with the research office uses affiliated with
the nearby post -secondary institutions. The primary uses permitted in the Innovation District include
offices, particularly research and high-tech offices institutional uses and residential uses.
Policies 15.D.2.50 to 15.D.2.52 of the City of Kitchener's Official Plan encourage growth in this area
to occur by permitting a full range of complementary commercial uses and encouraging high density
residential uses.
Policy 17.E.17 of the Official Plan allows bonusing to permit increases in the height and density
(FSR) of a development in exchange for those community benefits listed provided that the proposed
increases support the vision of the plan, constitute good planning, support good urban design and
are compatible with the adjacent properties and the surrounding area. The applicant has proposed
the following community benefits in support of the increase in FSR from 3.0 to 18.3:
• Transportation Demand Management Measures (including 148 Class A bicycle and 6 Class
B Bicycle parking spaces)
• Dwelling Units in the Urban Growth Centre
• Water and Energy conservation
• Parkland Improvements
• LEED Inspired Building Design
• Electric Vehicle Parking stalls (20 spaces and with charging stations)
• Special Needs Housing (19% of units Barrier free accessible)
In addition to the community benefits/bon using provisions above that will be formally secured
through a Section 37 Agreement, the developer is also proposing a significant affordable housing
donation. The applicant has advised in writing that they intend to make a $300,000 donation to the
St. Peter's Lutheran Church who will use the donation to contribute to the development of an
affordable housing project located in the downtown area. (Appendix E).
Page 11 of 256
As the subject lands are located within the UGC the OP strongly encourages the use of bonusing in
accordance with Policy 17.E.17.3. A Section 37 Agreement will be required and the specific
community benefits to be provided in exchange for density increases to be incorporated into the
amending Zoning By-law. Community benefits are to be provided in exchange for increased density
and may include, but are not limited to, constructing dwelling units in the UGC, energy or water
conservation, TDM measures, public art, transit infrastructure, public amenity areas, affordable
housing contributions, parkland enhancements, heritage conservation, provision of public parking
and others on the list in the Official Plan under Section 17.E.17.2. The items proposed by the
applicant, for this zoning by-law amendment application, are consistent with the Official Plan
direction on community benefits to be provided in exchange for density increases, and therefore
meets the intent of the Official Plan. The proposed community benefits for this development proposal
will be detailed below in the Zoning By-law section.
Section 15.D.2.3 of the OP indicates that transit supportive uses are vital to the downtown, and that
this area is intended to serve as a high-density major employment area as well as the area to support
the city's growth in population. The use proposed at the scale and density shown would meet this
transit supportive employment objective.
PARTS Central Plan
The subject lands are located within the PARTS Central Plan which is a guiding document that made
recommendations for land uses within and around rapid transit station stops. The PARTS Central
Plan made recommendation for amendments to the Secondary Plans within the MTSA, which have
not yet been implemented. One of the primary recommendations was to protect stable
neighbourhoods by directing growth in the areas such as the Innovation District. The applicant is
seeking density bonusing in exchange for the community benefits cited above. The proposed
development provides for a range of housing options located within the UGC. Accordingly, the
proposed amendment is in keeping with the PARTS Central vision for development within and
around the ION stops.
Urban Design
The City's urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. In the opinion of staff,
the proposed development meets the intent of 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 outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed
zoning by-law regulations.
Streetscape — A key design feature of the proposed development are active street frontages. The
commercial units are situated at grade along Charles Street West, while building amenity rooms and
uses are situated along Francis Street and wrap along the frontage of Halls Lane. The main
pedestrian entrance to the building is provided at the corner of Francis/Charles, easily accessible by
the public sidewalk. Vehicular entry to the site is provided off Charles Street West to the underground
parking level and Halls Lane to the passenger drop-off and podium parking. Cyclists can enter the
site from the underground parking entrance on Charles Street West. Loading and service vehicles
are proposed to access the site at the rear from Halls Lane.
Safety — As part of the site plan approval process, staff will ensure Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site meets the Ontario Building
Code and the City's Emergency Services Policy.
Universal Design — The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code.
Page 12 of 256
Skyline — The proposed tower will provide a new feature on the City's skyline. The proposed building
will create visual interest from several different vantage points.
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 built form for the
Urban Growth Centre. The tower of the proposed development is composed with a slender floorplate
located on top of a mid -rise building. The proposed podium base is sensitive in scale and massing
and is comparable to the height of the Tannery building located directly across the street. Tower
step -backs of approximately 2 metres are proposed along Francis Street. Unit balconies are
proposed on all elevations of the tower from Level 8 to Level 44.
Tower Design
The proposed building tower is classified as a "Compact Slab" as the proposed tower floor plate is
less than 850 square metres in area. The tower placement has been oriented to minimize overlook
to adjacent properties and provide a diagonal relationship with the existing tall building at 1 Victoria
Street. The tower massing aligns with ground floor level, offering a step back of approximately 2
metres from its widest point along Francis Street. The tower massing is broken up vertically by
variation and the articulation of building materials. Furthermore, balconies for the residential units
are included on all street -facing elevations.
Shadow Impact Study
The owner has completed a Shadow Impact Study in addition to the Urban Design Report. Staff
have reviewed the study and are satisfied the shadow study meets the minimum requirements, as
related to shadow impacts, as noted in the City of Kitchener Urban Design manual.
Wind Study
A wind study was prepared for the consideration of this development proposal and reviewed by staff.
The wind conditions surrounding the proposed development are expected to be suitable for sitting
in the summer and standing outside in both summer and winter. The wind study conditions for the
44 storey tower along Charles Street West and Francis Street south are expected to be comfortable
in the summer for sitting and standing in winter at the main entrance. Along the building's north wall
along Halls Lane, wind conditions are expected to be suitable for standing in the summer and
leisurely walking in the winter. Conditions on the 7th floor roof top terrace are also expected to be
comfortable in the summer and ideal for leisurely walking in the winter. Additional wind analysis will
occur through the site plan phase and any mitigation measures required will be addressed through
detailed building design phases.
Tall Buildinq Guidelines
The proposed development has also been reviewed for compliance with the City's Design for Tall
Buildings Guidelines. The objective of this document is to:
• achieve a positive relationship between high-rise buildings and their existing and planned
context;
• create a built environment that respects and enhances the city's open space system,
pedestrian and cyclist amenities and streetscapes;
• create human -scaled pedestrian -friendly streets, and attractive public spaces that contribute
to livable, safe and healthy communities;
• promote tall buildings that contribute to the view of the skyline and enhance orientation,
wayfinding and the image of the city;
Page 13 of 256
promote development that responds to the physical environment, microclimate and the
natural environment including four season design and sustainability; and,
promote tall building design excellence to help create visually and functionally pleasing
buildings of architectural significance.
The proposed development has been designed with these objectives in mind. City staff has
confirmed that the proposed tower is generally consistent with and meets the overall intent of the
City's Design for Tall Building Guidelines.
Transportation Policies:
The Official Plan supports 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 along the LRT line and in close proximity
to multiple ION station stops. The building has excellent access to cycling networks, including
existing on and off-street cycling facilities, the downtown cycling grid, and multiple trails that are
within close proximity. 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 Zoning By-law Amendment application supports a denser residential development in
the City of Kitchener's primary intensification area (UGC). The location of the proposed building,
results in a built form that fosters walkability in a pedestrian -friendly environment, which allows
walking to be a safe, comfortable, barrier -free and convenient form of urban travel.
As part of the 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.
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
development increases the range of dwelling units available in the city. The development is
contemplated to include a range of unit types including, one and two bedrooms, with and without
dens and three-bedroom units. Of the 532 proposed dwelling units, 19% of the units (101) will be
barrier free accessible. The wide range of units will appeal to a variety of households.
Sustainable Development
Section 7.C.4.1 of the City's Official Plan ensures developments will increasingly be sustainable by
encouraging, supporting and, where appropriate, requiring:
a) compact development and efficient built form;
b) environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and
construction practices;
c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into
building and site design;
Page 14 of 256
d) the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and,
e) transit -supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active
modes of transportation such as cycling and walking.
Development applications are required to demonstrate that the proposal meets the sustainable
development policies of the Plan and that sustainable development design standards are achieved.
Policy 7.C.4.6 of the Official Plans permits the City to develop bonusing regulations in the Zoning
By-law for development satisfying the sustainable development design standards. The bonusing
regulations may include provisions permitting building elements with a demonstrated benefit to the
community.
As part of the revised development submission, the Applicant has provided a letter outlining
sustainable development initiatives that will be further explored at the site planning stage. Planning
staff are recommending site-specific zoning that would require a Section 37 Bonusing Agreement.
One of the many community benefits being proposed is grey water collection for the irrigation of
landscape elements. Furthermore, twenty (20) Electric Vehicle parking spaces are required as part
of the site-specific zoning.
Official Plan Conclusions
Planning staff is recommending refusal of the requested Official Plan Amendment as it is no longer
required. Rather the requested increase in Floor Space Ratio will be achieved in exchange for the
provision of community benefits in accordance with the bonusing provisions of Section 17.E.17 of
the Official Plan to be detailed in the proposed zoning by-law. Staff are recommending approval of
a revised Zoning By-law Amendment application to add Special Regulation Provision 776R in Zoning
By-law 85-1 to permit the 44 storey mixed-use building with a reduced rear yard setback and an
increased floor space ratio achieved through bonusing provisions as further detailed in the proposed
Zoning By-law Amendment Section of this report. Planning staff are of the opinion that the
recommended Zoning By-law amendment conforms to the Official Plan.
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment:
The subject lands are zoned `Warehouse District Zone (D-6)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The existing
zoning permits a range of commercial and light industrial uses 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 `Warehouse District Zone (D-6)' to `Warehouse District Zone (D-6) with
Special Regulation Provision 776R and Holding Provision 90H' in Zoning By-law 85-1.
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.
The applicant is seeking to amend the Zoning By-law to add Special Regulation Provision 776R to
Zoning By-law 85-1. The proposed Special Regulation Provision is to allow for residential uses,
reduce the rear yard setback to 0 metres and increase the Floor Space Ratio from 2.0 to 18.3 through
a Section 37 Agreement, which will outline density bonusing increases in exchange for the provision
of community benefits in accordance with the bonusing provisions of Section 17.E.17 of the Official
Plan.
Staff offer the following comments with respect to the proposed Special Regulation Provision 776R
Page 15 of 256
a) Multiple Dwelling Residential Units shall be permitted.
The purpose of this regulation is to allow residential uses on the subject land. The current zoning of
the property does not align with the subject lands 2014 Official Plan Designation (Innovation District)
as the new downtown zoning to implement the 2014 Official Plan has not been completed. The
primary uses permitted in the Innovation District include offices, particularly research and high-tech
offices institutional uses and residential uses.
b) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 0.0 metres for a mixed-use building containing
a residential dwelling.
The purpose of this regulation is to allow the building's podium to be located right up to the rear property
line. The subject lands have frontage on three public right of ways (Halls Lane, Francis Street and
Charles Street) which do not have a minimum yard setback when abutting a street. The request to
reduce the rear yard setback (property line abutting the U -Haul surface parking lot) allows the podium
to be built to the rear property line and allows for a continuous urban built form along Charles Street
West and Halls Lane.
c) An additional Floor Space Ratio of 16.3. shall be provided in exchange for community
benefits as set out in this by-law and secured through a Section 37 Agreement for a total
maximum for the site of 18.3.
Bonusing is a strategy that is currently permitted by the Planning Act within frameworks approved
by Council prior to September 18, 2022 and may be used by the City to assist in the development
or redevelopment of key areas in the City. It involves increasing the height and/or density of a
development or redevelopment in exchange for community benefits. The proposed development is
proposing to increase the Floor Space Ratio in exchange for the provision of community benefits in
accordance with the bonusing provisions of Section 17.E.17 the Official Plan. The owner is proposing
the following bonusing provisions identified in the Official Plan to allow for increased density;
Transportation Demand Management Measures, Dwelling Units in the Urban Growth Centre, Water
and Energy conservation, Affordable Housing Sponsorship, Parkland Improvements, LEED inspired
building design, Electric Vehicle Parking stalls and Barrier Free Accessible Units.
Community Benefits / Bonusing Provisions
Pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the density (Floor Space Ratio) of development permitted
by this By-law is subject to compliance with the conditions set out in this By-law and in return for the
provision by the owner of the site the following community benefits listed below, the provisions of
which shall be secured by an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act.
a) Transportation Demand Management Measures including 148 Class A bicycle
and 6 Class B Bicycle parking spaces;
Section 17.E.17.2 b) of the Official Plan identifies Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies as a bonusing provision. TDM measures are used to reduce the use of single occupancy
vehicles and encourage increased transit ridership, walking and cycling. The development proposes
to include 148 Class A bicycle (indoor) and 6 Class B (outdoor) Bicycle parking spaces. The current
zoning by-law does not require any Class A and Class B bicycle parking spaces. The proposed TDM
measure will encourage cycling by providing residents and visitors adequate bicycle parking to help
reduce the dependency on motor vehicles.
Page 16 of 256
b) Dwelling Units in the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown);
Section 17.E.17.2 o) of the Official Plan identifies the development of Dwelling Units in the UCG as
a bonusing provision. The OP policies for the UGC are designed to support population and job
growth by encouraging high intensity residential developments in the Downtown. The UGC is
planned to be a vibrant regional and citywide focal point and destination and is intended to be the
city's primary focal point for residential intensification as well as for investment in institutional and
region -wide public services, commercial, office, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses. The
addition of 532 residential units which include a wide range of unit types, proposed through this
development will assists in making the downtown a more vibrant place and meeting the goals of the
City of Kitchener's Official Plan.
c) Water and Energy Conservation;
Section 17.E.17.2 a) of the OP identifies Water and Energy conservation as a bonusing provision.
Water is one of our most precious resources; it is essential to human life and the health of our
environment and our community. Section 7.C.5.2. of the Official Plan encourages the use of
alternative water supply and demand management systems such as, rainwater harvesting and grey
water reuse in all new developments and/or redevelopments. The proposed development includes
a Rainwater collection and reuse system which will be used for irrigation purposes. This proposed
water conservation measure will reduce water consumption on site and contribute towards a
sustainable development.
d) Parkland Improvements, including all costs associated with
the design and construction of Francis Green Parkette;
Section 17.E.17.2 e) of the Official Plan identifies improvements to parks as a bonusing provision.
In consultation with Parks and Cemeteries staff, it has been identified that the Francis Green would
benefit from improvements to support its use as a public parkette in the downtown core and that a
redesign and enhancement of this space is a welcomed community benefit. Francis Green is a
parkette owned by the City of Kitchener and located across Hall's Lane to the north of the subject
lands. The developer is proposing to redesign, tender and reconstruct the public space. The parkette
will be reprogrammed for higher public enjoyment and usability. A number of new residential
developments in the area, such as 1 Victoria and the Kaufman Lofts condominiums would directly
benefit through an improved greenspace as well as wider community benefit to residents of and
visitors to the downtown area of Kitchener. Attributes of the Francis Green, such as the Industrial
Artifact, are important to incorporate into any consideration for redesign and construction to
repurpose for better public utilization. The developer has proposed a high-level conceptual design
for the Francis Green which incorporates the industrial features and provides an improved urban
parkette design for better community use. The space would be redesigned to meet the needs of an
urban parkette and should pay regard to the improvements recently implemented in the City's
Vogelsang Green (located at the corner of Duke Street West and Queen Street North). However,
consideration to elements to support wider community park and open space use, such as play
elements, could be included. Designs will meet or exceed existing City standards and will be shared
and reviewed as per the `Developer Build' process with review at 30%, 60% and 90% stages with a
fully costed construction set being approved pre -tender. As built drawings to City standards will be
provided after construction. There will be no cost to the City of Kitchener as the developer will be
fully responsible to design and construct the improvements to the Francis Green. Public input will be
considered as part the redesign of the park space.
e) LEED inspired building design;
Section 17.E.17.2 k) of the Official Plan identifies the construction of buildings to LEED standards
as a bonusing provision. The proposed development will be designed by incorporated LEED
Page 17 of 256
standards which will include the following LEED inspired design features:
■ Indoor Bicycle facilities
■ Reduced parking rate to lessen on-site parking footprint
■ Electric vehicle parking and Charging Stations
■ Rainwater collection and reuse to reduce irrigation demands
■ Rooftop green space to promote habitat restoration, reduce solar heat gain and mitigate heat
island effect
■ Selection of finishes with low or zero Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) off -gassing
■ Covered parking to reduce heat island effect
■ Reduce light pollution by using down lighting
■ Reduce Indoor water use by using low flow and water saving fixtures
All of these design considerations are LEED inspired which will result in a sustainable development
and will be further explored and secured through a Section 41 agreement at the Site Plan approval
stage.
f) 20 Electric Vehicle Parking stalls;
Section 17.E.17.2 b) of the Official Plan identifies Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies as a bonusing provision. Section 13.C.7.2. of the Official Plan identifies electric vehicle
charging stations as an enhanced sustainable transportation choice. The twenty (20) Electric Vehicle
Parking stalls will provide for a sustainable transportation choice for residents in the proposed
development and contribute to a sustainable development. The current Zoning By-law does not
require any EV parking spaces.
g) Barrier free accessible units (19% of total units).
Section 17.E.17.2 1) of the Official Plan identifies the provision of special needs housing as a
bonusing provision. The proposed development includes 101 (19% of total units) barrier free
accessible units which is a form of special needs housing. These barrier free units will provide
housing opportunities to residents that require barrier free units and those that may not drive, with
good public transit accessibility and the full range of community services.
Staff offer the following comments with respect to Holding Provision 90H:
Official Plan policies indicate that holding provisions will be applied in those situations where it is
necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment
of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment
have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to facilitate the
implementation of the `D-6' zone and special regulation provision. The City will enact a by-law to
remove the holding symbol when all the conditions set out in the holding provision have been
satisfied, permitting development or redevelopment in accordance with the zoning category
assigned.
Holding Provision 90H
Planning staff are recommending the following holding provision as part of the Zoning By-law
Amendment:
No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Record of Site Condition is
submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt
Page 18 of 256
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.
No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Traffic, Railway and Stationary
Noise Study is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of
Planning, Housing and Community Services, if necessary. This Holding Provision shall not
be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Regional Commissioner
of Planning, Housing and Community Services advising that such noise study or studies has
been approved and an agreement, if necessary, has been entered into with the City and/or
Region, as necessary, providing for the implementation of any recommended noise
mitigation measures
There is an environmental threat located on the adjacent lands in accordance with the Region's
Threats Inventory Database (TID) due to past and current land uses. A Record of Site Condition
(RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required in accordance with the Region's
Implementation Guidelines. Until such time that the RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have
been received by the Region, residential redevelopment of the site is not permitted. A noise study
was prepared in support of the proposed Zoning By-law and reviewed by the Region of Waterloo.
Additional building noise mitigation measure will be reviewed through the site plan design and
approvals process and an addendum to the noise study will be required prior to removal of the
Holding Provision.
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment to add Special Regulation
Provision 776R represents good planning as it will facilitate the development of a high intensity mixed
use development that is compatible with the Urban Growth Centre neighbourhood, which will add
visual interest at the street level and skyline, provide enhanced landscaping that will contribute to
the streetscape, and which will appropriately accommodate on-site parking needs. The proposed
zoning by-law amendment offers an appropriate amount of community benefits in return for the
increased density. Staff are supportive of the proposed development and recommend that the
proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Appendix "A".
Department and Agency Comments:
Circulation of the OPA and ZBA was undertaken in April 2021 to all applicable City departments and
other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or
agency and any necessary revisions and updates were made. Copies of the comments are found
in Appendix "C" of this report.
The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan
Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment:
• Planning Justification and Urban Design Brief
Prepared by: GSP Group, November, 2021
• Planning Justification Report
Prepared by: GSP Group, February, 2021
• Community Benefits Package Report
Prepared by: GSP Group, December, 2021
• Functional Site Grading, Servicing and Stormwater Management Report
Page 19 of 256
Prepared by: IBI Group, November 22, 2021
• Sustainability Statement
Prepared by: SRM Architects, November 4, 2021
• Shadow Study
Prepared by: SRM Architects, November 5, 2021
• Wind Study
Prepared by: RWDI, November 5, 2021
• Pedestrian Wind Assessment
Prepared by: SLR, March 23, 2021
• Noise Feasibility Study
Prepared by: HGC Engineering, January 13, 2021
• Landscape Plan
Prepared by: GSP Group, December 2020
Community Input & Staff Responses
Staff received written responses from 34 residents with respect to the proposed development. These
may be found in Appendix `D'. A Neighbourhood Information Meeting was held on June 2, 2021 and
a follow up Neighbourhood Meeting to inform residents of the revised development proposal was
held on December 14, 2021. In addition, staff had follow up one-on-one correspondence with
members of the public. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below.
What We Heard
Staff Comment
Staff received numerous emails in support of the proposed
development. As noted in the staff report the location is
Residents support the development
appropriate as the subject lands are located in the heart of
and feel it's the appropriate location
the City of Kitchener's Downtown (Urban Growth Centre)
for a development of this scale.
which is planned for significant growth and within close
proximity to multiple ION station stops and a planned
transit hub at King and Victoria Streets.
The original development proposal included bachelor units
(300 square feet) that were proposed to be sold at an
affordable market rate ($368,000). The development was
Affordable Housing should be
revised to transform the bachelor units into five larger 3
Provided.
bedroom units and the developer is proposing to make a
$300,000 donation to the St. Peter's Lutheran Church, who
will use the money towards an affordable housing project
in the Downtown area.
The developer is proposing to redesign, tender, and
Concerns that too many residents in
reconstruct Francis Green which is located adjacent to the
the downtown will result in crowding
subject property. Francis Green has been identified as an
at Victoria Park.
underutilized green space in the Downtown and the
redesign, construction and enhancement of the Downtown
parkette will provide for an upgraded public urban space.
In addition to the parkland enhancements at Francis Green
Page 20 of 256
Page 21 of 256
to alleviate pressures on downtown public park spaces, the
proposed development includes a 7t" floor landscaped
1100 square metre (11840 square foot) amenity terrace as
well as 223 square metre (2400 square feet) of indoor
amenity area. The City's Parkland Dedication Policy
currently excludes parkland dedication in the Downtown.
The Innovation District land use designation does not have
a maximum building height. The proposed height and
density are justified and increased density will be achieved
through the provision of community benefits. The subject
lands are located in the heart of the City of Kitchener's
A 44 storey building is too tall.
Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), an area planned for
significant intensification, which includes multiple high
rises that are similar in height and density which are
currently built, under construction or planned. The subject
lands are within close proximity to multiple major transit
station areas. The location of the proposed development
of this height and density is appropriate.
The City of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre consists of
numerous high-rises that are built or approved to be built
ranging from 10 storeys to 44 storeys. Comparable high-
rise buildings in height that are built, under construction or
The building should be similar in
Proposed include the following developments:
height to what is built now in the
DTK (60 Frederick St) - 39 Storeys
downtown.
Charlie West (60 Charles St W) - 31 Storeys
20 Queen Street - 34 Storeys
Station Park (607 King St W), 18, 28, 36, 40 and 44 storeys
The proposed development's podium is proposed to match
The buildings podium should match
the Tannery building located across the street. Reflecting
the building height of the Tannery
the height of the Tannery building was an important design
building located across the street.
element that was considered in the design of the building.
Larger three bedroom units should
In direct response to public comments, the applicant has
be provided rather than just all one
revised the development to include five larger 3 bedroom
and two bedroom units.
units. Furthermore five 2 bedroom units with dens are also
proposed providing a further range of unit types.
Commercial uses should be oriented
In direct response to public comments, the development
along Charles Street West.
has been revised to include three commercial units along
Charles Street West, which will activate the street frontage.
The Region of Waterloo has a reconstruction project
planned for Victoria Street in the next few years. With all
of the changes occurring in this area, including new and
planned mixed-use developments, and the future Transit
Traffic concerns along Halls Lane,
Terminal, pedestrian considerations will be specifically
Victoria Street, and the narrow
considered during the planning, design, and
sidewalks along Victoria Street.
implementation of streetscape improvements. City
Transportation Services staff will be reviewing the
pavement markings and signage on Halls Lane at Victoria
in the spring to see if there are improvements that can be
made. Limiting access to Halls Lane, or converting the
Page 21 of 256
laneway to one-way, would not be feasible due to the
number of vehicles accessing it, as well as considerations
for waste collection and snow removal. Directing vehicle
traffic to Halls Lane for access allows for more space
along the public street to be used for active uses, rather
than parking garage access.
Planning Conclusions
In considering the foregoing, staff are recommending refusal of the requested Official Plan
Amendment as it is no longer required and are recommending approval of the revised Zoning By-
law Amendment to permit 30 Francis Street South to be developed with a 44 storey mixed-use
building. Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the Provincial
Policy Statement (2020); conforms to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional
Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan; and represents good planning and is in the
public interest. The City of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre is the place for this level of
intensification and the City is using the bonusing tool under Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure
community benefits. It is recommended that the Zoning By-law Amendment application 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:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. The improvements
proposed to Francis Green will be the full responsibility of 30 Francis Kitchener Incorporated.
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 was posted to the City's website in the spring of 2021. Following the initial circulation
referenced below, an additional Courtesy Notice of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all
residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the
preliminary circulation and who attended the Neighbourhood Information Meetings. Notice of the
Statutory Public Meeting was posted in The Record on February 11, 2022 (a copy of the Notice may
be found in Appendix B).
CONSULT — The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were circulated
to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on April 12, 2021. In
response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 34 households, which were
summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with
residents on the telephone and responded to emails.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
Growth Plan, 2020
Page 22 of 256
• Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
• Regional Official Plan, 2015
• City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014
• PARTS Central Plan
• City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1
REVIEWED BY: Stevenson, Garett — Manager of Development Review, Planning Division
APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services
APPENDIX&
Appendix A — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Appendix B — Newspaper Notice
Appendix C — Department and Agency Comments
Appendix D — Public Comments
Appendix E - Affordable Housing Letter
Appendix F - Final Development Concept
Page 23 of 256
PROPOSED BY — LAW
2022
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended known as
the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener
— 30 Francis Kitchener Incorporated — 30 Francis Street
South)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 for the lands specified above;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as
follows:
1. Schedule Number 84 of Appendix "A" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by changing the
zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1,
in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Warehouse District Zone (D-6) to
Warehouse District Zone (D-6) with Special Regulation Provision 776R and Holding
Provision 90H.
2. Schedule Number 84 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended
by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No.1 attached hereto.
3. Appendix "D" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 776 thereto
as follows:
"776. Notwithstanding Sections 17.1 and 17.3 of this By-law, within the lands
zoned D-6 and shown as being affected by this Subsection on Schedule
Number 84 of Appendix "A", the following special regulations shall apply:
i) Dwelling Units shall be permitted in a building containing non-
residential uses on the ground floor;
ii) Dwelling Units shall not be located on the ground floor;
iii) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 0.0 metres;
iv) Where permitted pursuant to the transitional provisions set out in
Section 37.1 of the Planning Act, an additional floor space ratio of
Page 24 of 256
16.3. shall be provided in exchange for community benefits set out
in this by-law and secured through an agreement made in
accordance with the provisions set out in Subsection 37(3) of the
Planning Act as it existed on the day before section 1 of Schedule
17 to the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 came into force
(the "Effective Date") for a total maximum for the site of 18.3;
V) Where permitted pursuant to Section 37.1 of the Planning Act, the
density (Floor Space Ratio) of development permitted by this By-
law is subject to compliance with the conditions set out in this By-
law and in return for the provision by the owner of the site the
following community benefits listed below, the provisions of which
shall be secured by an agreement made pursuant to Subsection
37(3) of the Planning Act as it existed on the day before the
Effective Date:
a) Transportation Demand Management Measures
including 148 Class A bicycle and 6 Class B Bicycle parking
spaces;
b) Dwelling Units in the Urban Growth Centre;
c) Water and Energy conservation;
d) Parkland Improvements, including all costs associated with
the design and construction of Francis Green Parkette.
e) LEED inspired building design;
f) 20 Electric Vehicle Parking stalls; and
g) 19% of all Dwelling Units be Barrier Free Accessible.
vi) Upon execution and registration on title of an agreement with the
owner of the site pursuant to Subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act
as it existed on the day before the Effective Date, securing the
provisions of the facilities, services and matters listed in (v) above,
the site is subject to the provisions of this By-law, provided that in
the event the said agreement requires the provision of a facility,
service or matter as a precondition to the issuance of a building
permit, the owner may not erect or use such building until the owner
has satisfied the said requirements."
Page 25 of 256
4. Appendix "F" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 90H thereto
as follows:
"90H. Notwithstanding Section 17 of this Bylaw, within the lands zoned D-6
and shown as being affected by this Subsection on Schedule 84 of
Appendix "A":
i) No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a
Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the
satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, 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.
ii) No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a
Traffic, Railway and Stationary Noise Study is submitted and
approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of
Planning, Housing and Community Services, if necessary.
This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the City of
Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Regional
Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services
advising that such noise study or studies has been approved
and an agreement, if necessary, has been entered into with
the City and/or Region, as necessary, providing for the
implementation of any recommended noise mitigation
measures."
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of ,
2022.
Mayor
Clerk
Page 26 of 256
LU IX
z z 0 x
c^o O z EE p0
IN
LU O O x
p Z W W N U x
cfl O Z w -iLU D w O
Z-> IJ 0Wzz U) wLU
IN NO z 0 Q Q -i Z- N w p U
p a x U H Q O
z w W
Z
LO IN Zo N Q X14 _ LU
p
~ O Z W W Z W U T:Z J X LU Z O
QoK 2 �CnwOpof_zw�H LU LU
_ J pHA; O�z�W�p0~Z Zw�
In (LLJn p ULU
` O W J N _U p O W j W N LL (n
Q W- O� p H
w
00 OLULU X afw -j zv��Qu �Qzz w Ug¢
H W XLu OUp �nw2OwwQxm ;�� x (n LU W
U o��OfII �zoLLJ �����ozo zoo
IM W W> 2 p J O M w' O O Z Z U N z M z 0 w' w'
^2 Q= Z 7 7 V L9 T N Q 30 N In I�
U) QQWQ Inoo0 oppIN NdOf2
/� x � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII QM 2� ��
d)
m
N CO
� Illllllb � j
r
III � �IIIIIIII O
p111 00
m04�
CV
04
C7
17;
o
� =
uullVppppuulluu
0
�
� m
uuuppuu
O�
0
p111 00
m04�
CV
04
C7
17;
o
a
}
Q
rn
QOO
Wi
o
O
N
ti ti
W ❑ x�
LLNE
p
�on
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
o
Q
Q
Q M
m
W
W
N
Ll
Lr)W
w
�
M
MY...,,..
IIIIIIVppplllllllllplll
O\L
N
�
Q
N
LL
W
Z m
~
Z
Ll
z
g
N
O
z
z
Wo¢0
z
Q
N
LJ
z
�zXN
Q
m
Q
^+ a
W
p
p
N
O
H
�W
��
w
(D CL
woax
zxQU
Z
W
Z
i�
OY 0c) lzw
W
w
Z
w
�
Z
(nW
,
col
z
wo
w
U
o
•
OLU
_
a
LULU
i.
Y(n
Ln
0 o pIUIIIpV
Lr)Z
U) 0-
0
�n
>
1.0
cs
'
ZQ U
Z
U
o
Z
LL
o
co
0
OLL
, r
o
N
O
oc
�
o
N
N
,
J%I
p
N
'
b
jjjj
N
II
111L
W
�W
}
Q
C,µ
QOO
o
=)'ll
ti ti
�
�
�on
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
' S
Q
Q M
J
W
�
M
MY...,,..
IIIIIIVppplllllllllplll
U)
Q
M
Q M2
t
.Q.
w
r
z
wo
OD (D
C-4 04
o
•
_
CD
i.
Y(n
0 o pIUIIIpV
Lr)Z
U) 0-
Z
aFjoQ
1.0
cs
ZQ U
LL
N
v
CC
G
_
LL
o
co
0
, r
o
2
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
30 Francis Street South
Concept drawing
44 S'I o m..eys
IhIIIi ea
sed
)ens�ty
1:a OII [a I
III nIlp aricei.. its
Have Your Voice Heard!
Date: March 7, 2022
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
To view the staff report, agenda,
find meeting details or to
appear as a delegation, visit:
kitchener.ca/meetings
To learn more about this project,
including information on your
appeal rights, visit:
www.kitchenenca/
plan n i nga ppl ications
or contact:
Craig Dumart, Senior Planner
519.741.2200 x7073
craig.dumart@ kitchener.ca
Applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments will be
considered to permit a 44 storey mixed used building with a Floor Space Ratio
of 18.3 and reduced rear and side yard building setbacks.
Page 28 of 256
Internal memo
Development Services Department
Date:
November 29, 2021
To:
Craig Dumart, Senior Planner
From:
Victoria Grohn, Senior Planner (Heritage)
cc:
Subject:
Resubmission 1
Official Plan Amendment OPA21 /001 /F/DE
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/002/F/DE
30 Francis South
Heritage Planning Comments
J
I��►� �,R
www.kitchener. ca
Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the covering letter prepared by GSP Group and dated
November 11, 2021; the revised Urban Design Brief prepared by GSP Group and dated November
2021; the architectural plans and elevations prepared by SRM Architects; building renderings
prepared by SRM Architects; Heritage Massing Section Diagram prepared by SRM Architects and
dated November 5, 2021; and the Heritage Design Brief prepared by SRM Architects.
Overall, the updated materials provided with the resubmission package appear to address
comments previously provided by Heritage Planning staff with respect to the podium massing of
the proposed development being of similar mass to the adjacent Tannery building located at the
corner of Charles Street West and Francis Street South. The podium of the proposed tower has
been designed to be 6 -storeys, which is of a comparable height to the Tannery building. Heritage
Planning staff continue to request that the maximum height of the podium be regulated via a special
provision regulation in the zoning by-law.
In addition, the previous comments provided by Heritage Planning staff continue to apply for a future
Site Plan process:
• Heritage Planning staff and urban design staff will review the elevation drawings; and
• Heritage Planning staff will require a sample material board for review and approval.
Page 29 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Mike Seiling
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 4:28 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments
(30 Francis Street South)
Attachments: Agency Letter_Final.pdf
Building; no concerns.
Mike
From: Christine Kompter <Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 20213:13 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood
<theywood@grandrive r.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca>; GRCA
(South Kitchener) - Jenn Simons <jsimons@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One -
Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine
Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper
<Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation
<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk
<Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data
Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; UW - SA <Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>;
WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning
<planning@wrdsb.ca>
Cc: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (30 Francis Street South)
Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Dayna Edwards, Senior Planner (copied on
this email).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
Page 30 of 256
Region of Waterloo
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design)
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor
P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON
N2G 4G7
Dear Ms. Edwards,
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
Community Planning
150 Frederick Street 8th Floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4466
www.regionofwaterloo.ca
Melissa Mohr 226-752-8622
File: D17/2/21001
C14/2/21002
July 2, 2021
Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/001 and
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/002
30 Francis Street
GSP Group Inc. on behalf of IN8 Developments
CITY OF KITCHENER
GSP Group on behalf of IN8 Developments has submitted an Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 30 Francis Street in the
City of Kitchener.
The purpose and effect of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment is
to redevelop the property with a 44 -storey building that includes an internal parking
structure, rooftop amenity terrace and 532 residential dwelling units. The building is
situated at the corner of Francis Street South and Charles Street West, with the
principal entrance being located on Francis Street South.
To facilitate the development proposal, an Official Plan Amendment is being requested
which will maintain the Innovation District Designation and include a Special Policy Area
to permit a floor space ratio of 14.7. In addition, the applicant requires a Zoning By-law
Amendment that will incorporate a special regulation provision with the existing D-6
Zone in order to permit the increased density (floor space ratio of 14.7/ permit the 44 -
storey building) and reduce the building setbacks.
The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following:
Document Number: 3717639 Version: 1
Page 31 of 256
Regional Comments
Consistency with Provincial Legislation and Regional Official Plan Conformity
The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Urban Growth Centre" on
Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the site is located in the Urban
Growth Centre and designated Innovation District in the City of Kitchener Official Plan.
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 Urban Growth
Centres (UGC's) and 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 high-density development that
exceeds the reurbanization target within the Urban Growth Center. Furthermore, this
site is located within 600-800 metres of multiple ION Stops. Regional staff have no
objection to higher density within the MTSA area and Urban Growth Centre of the
Region as the type of high-density development proposed on site supports the Planned
Community Function of the Regional Official Plan.
The Region wishes to advise the applicant of the following technical comments related
to the proposal:
Corridor Planning
Environmental (Road and Stationary) Noise Study Comments:
The "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Development, 30 Francis Street,
Kitchener, Ontario" completed by HGC Engineering dated January 13, 2021 has been
received and is under review. Comments regarding the Road and Stationary noise
aspects of the report will be provided separately.
It is recommended that these comments be received prior to the city proceeding
with a recommendation.
Document Number: 3717639 Version: 1
Page 32 of 256
In addition, please be advised that a detailed Noise Study may be required at the time
of Site Plan to ensure that the site design incorporates required noise mitigation
measures.
Stormwater Management & Site Grading:
Region of Waterloo staff have received the "Functional Site Grading, Servicing and
SWM Report, 30 Francis Street South, City of Kitchener", completed by IBI Group
(dated January 2021) and it is under review. Formal comments will be provided under
separate cover. It is recommended that these comments be received prior to the
city proceeding with a recommendation.
Regional Road Dedication:
This section of Charles Street West (Regional Road 64) has a designated road width of
26.213m (86ft) in accordance with Schedule 'A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The
existing Charles Street West right-of-way measures approximately 20.117m (66ft) at
this location. An estimated road widening dedication of approximately 3.048m (1 Oft) will
be required along the Charles Street West property frontage for this development. It
appears that the correct road widening dedication width has been shown on all plans
provided. In addition to the road widening dedication, a daylight triangle dedication at
the corner of the Charles Street West/Francis Street intersection is also required in
association with site development. The development proposes a 3m x 3m daylight
triangle dedication, which is satisfactory to the Region of Waterloo.
The road widening dedications can be deferred to a future Site Plan application, but all
design concepts and drawings going forward must continue to include the areas of
dedication.
An Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) in consultation with the Region's Transportation
Planner must determine the exact amount of road widening to be dedicated. In addition,
the land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes,
without cost and free of encumbrance.
The Region of Waterloo will require a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
and possibly a Phase II ESA (depending on the findings of the Phase I ESA) for the
road widening and daylight triangle dedication areas. Please ensure that any Record
of Site Condition (RSC) for the subject lands excludes the area of road widening
and daylight triangle dedications.
Landscaping
The architectural plans and landscape plans propose a number of landscape features in
the existing Charles Street West right of way and also in the area of future road
widening dedication. The Region of Waterloo has no objection to certain landscape
features within the right of way; therefore, Regional staff wish to work with the applicant
to develop a landscaping plan that will be approved by various Region of Waterloo
departments.
Document Number: 3717639 Version: 1
Page 33 of 256
Proposed Encroachments
The plans provided with the application propose a number of building encroachments
which appear to be both above and below grade level. Please note that no new
encroachments shall be permitted within the Regional right of way. Please ensure the
building and building features such as decorative pillars and underground
parking structures (above and belowground) are contained completely within the
subject lands (no building parts shall be permitted in the Region's right -of -Way or
land dedications)
Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation:
The existing property obtains vehicular access to the municipal road network via a
single full movement access to Francis Street (Local Road under the jurisdiction of the
City of Kitchener) and a single full movement access location to Hall's Lane West (local
road under the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener). The concept drawing provided with
the application propose a new full movement vehicular access to Charles Street West
(to service all underground and above grade parking spaces) and an additional
vehicular access to Hall's Lane West (for the parking podium and drop off area). Region
of Waterloo staff have no concerns with the proposed access concept and locations.
The Regional Road Access Permit application found here:
(https://forms. regionofwaterloo.ca/ePay/PDLS-Online-Payment-Forms/Commercial-
Access-Permit-Application). The application and the associated fee ($230) shall be
required for the proposed Charles Street West access location. The application and fee
can be deferred to a future Site Plan application and Regional staff can work with the
owner/applicant under the Site Plan application to complete access design details.
Transit Planning:
Please be advised that Grand River Transit (GRT) currently operates Route 6 along this
section of Francis Street West, however, there is no existing or proposed stop along the
frontage of this property. GRT & ION currently operates routes near the proposed
development with major transit stops at the Victoria/King and Charles/Water
intersections.
Information Related to NAV Canada:
While the proposed development lies outside of the Region of Waterloo International
Airport Zoning Regulated Area (AZR) and the proposed building height is not limited by
the AZR heights, NAV Canada has asked to be informed of any buildings, which will be
above the existing ground level of 30.5m (100ft) in height. The height criteria is also
applied to the use of construction cranes. If the building height is more than 30.5m
above ground level please complete the appropriate Land Use Submission Form
(https://www.navcanada.ca/en/products-and-services/Pages/land-use-program.aspx).
More information can be found on the NAV Canada website
(https://www.navcanada.ca/en/Pages/default.aspx).
Document Number: 3717639 Version: 1
Page 34 of 256
Record of Site Condition
There is a high environmental threat located on the adjacent lands in accordance with
the Region's Treats Inventory Database (TID) due to past and current land uses. A
Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required
in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines. The Region shall accept a
holding zone until such time that the RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have
been received. Alternatively, should the RSC be required in accordance with O.Reg
153/04, the Region may defer the RSC to building permit issuance, subject to
confirmation in writing from the Chief Building Official (CBO) of the City of Kitchener that
the RSC will be required prior to building permit issuance. Should the letter not be
received, the Region shall require the Holding Zone until the RSC and Ministry
Acknowledgment Letter have been received. Please ensure that the Road Widening
and Daylight Triangle (Road Dedications) are excluded from the Record of Site
Condition.
Regional Water Services
Please be advised that no connection to regional watermains shall be permitted in
accordance with Section B.2.1.4.1 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental
Specifications for Municipal Services, January 2021. Regional staff understand that the
applicant is proposing a connection to the 300 mm diameter local watermain and
therefore have no objections to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment from a
Regional water services perspective.
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.
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
ex ensive of:
Housing for which the purchase price results in annual
accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross
$368,000
annual household income for low and moderate income
households
Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent
below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the
$487,637
regional market area
`Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2020).
Document Number: 3717639 Version: 1
Page 35 of 256
In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house
price is $368,000.
For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit (based on the definition of
affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan), the average rent is compared to the
least expensive of:
A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the
gross annual household income for low and moderate income
$1,420
renter households
A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent
Bachelor: $863
(AMR) in the regional market area
1 -Bedroom: $1,076
2 -Bedroom: $1,295
3 -Bedroom: $1,359
4+ Bedroom: $1,359
`Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2020)
In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must
be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above.
In addition, 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.
Fees
By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the review fees of
$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.
Further comments relating to the Environmental Noise Study (to address Road and
Stationary Noise) and the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management
Report will be provided separately. It is recommended that these comments be
received prior to the city proceeding with a recommendation.
Document Number: 3717639 Version: 1
Page 36 of 256
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. IN8 Developments C/O Tom Kizeweter (Owner)
Chris Pidgeon, GSP Group Inc. (Applicant)
Document Number: 3717639 Version: 1
Page 37 of 256
Region of Waterloo
Craig Dumart, MCIP. RPP
Senior Planner
DSD — Planning Division
City of Kitchener
200 King Street W.
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
craig.dumart@Kitchener.ca
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.regionofwaterloo.ca
Melissa Mohr (226) 752-8622
File: D17-40/2/21001 &
C14-60/2/21002
January 31, 2022
Re: Noise Study
OPA 21/001/F/DE and ZBA 21/002/F/DE
30 Francis Street S. follow up to Regional Comments
IN8 Developments
CITY OF KITCHENER
Regional staff have reviewed the Study entitled, "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed
Residential Development, 30 Francis Street, Kitchener, Ontario" (HGC Engineering,
January 27, 2022), and HGC's Response Letter to Region comments dated January 15,
2022. The development consists of two (2) levels of underground parking, ground floor
commercial, above -ground parking & residential suites up to the 6th floor, and a 44 -
storey residential .tower. An outdoor amenity area is included on the 7th floor. Noise
sources assessed include road & rail traffic, and on/off-site stationary noise. The
Feasibility Study conclusions and recommendations together with the Response Letter
are acceptable to the Region. A detailed noise study to address the impacts of on-site
and off-site stationary noise sources on sensitive uses (on-site and off-site), and to
address matters identified in the Response Letter will be required as part of site plan
approval for the development. Staff recommends this detailed noise study be
secured by way of a holding provision in the proposed zoning -law amendment
(with the holding to be lifted prior to site plan approval).
Document Number: 3941692 Version: 1
Page 38 of 256
Furthermore, the following shall be implemented through a future Consent or
Condominium Application and/or Site Plan Application:
Road and Rail Traffic Noise
With the following mitigations measures recommended, the Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks NPC -300 Noise Guideline and Region of Waterloo Guideline
for Noise Policies for road and rail traffic noise level criteria can be met for this
development.
Based on road and rail traffic modelling used in the report the noise results in Table 5
and 6 of the Study indicate daytime and nighttime noise levels exceed the noise level
criteria in the MECP's NPC -300 noise guideline.
The Study recommends the following: use of balcony barriers of appropriate height
(solid parapet made of glass) to shield any windows to sensitive spaces behind; use of
building components that meet the Ontario Building Code (OBC), construction of units
with alternative means of cooling other than opening the windows, and noise warning
clauses. These recommendations may change as a result of the required detailed noise
study at the time of Site Plan.
Notwithstanding any recommendations of the future detailed noise study, a warning
clause to advise purchasers of road and rail traffic noise shall be included in a
registered agreement between the Owner/Applicant and the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo to be included in all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements, and any
future plan of condominium declaration. This should be applicable for all residential and
sensitive commercial uses within the development. Wording as follows,
"Purchasers/tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control features in
the development and within the building units, sound levels due to increasing road and
rail traffic may continue to be of concern, and may occasionally interfere with some
activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of
the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks noise
criteria. "
"This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air
conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of the central air conditioning by
the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior
doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the
sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation
and Parks."
"Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest
has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There
may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the
future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid
may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the
Document Number: 3941692 Version: 1
Page 39 of 256
residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration
attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR
will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities
and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way."
Stationary Noise
Section 7 Impact of the Development on the Environment (off-site receptors) (pp. 10-11)
The report has indicated on-site noise sources are not yet known as detail building
design is not yet completed. Though future on-site noise sources may
include: emergency generator, fresh air handling systems, exhaust fans and
mechanical equipment etc., in HGC's experience these on-site noise sources can be
addressed through appropriate mitigation. A detailed noise assessment will need to be
undertaken prior to site plan approval to determine the impact of on-site noise sources
on on-site and off-site sensitive noise receptors.
Section 8.3 Stationary Source Assessment (pp. 16-18)
Significant off-site noise sources impact the subject development including rooftop
mechanical equipment from surrounding buildings. Based on assumptions used in the
modelling, noise results in Table 10 of the Study indicate daytime noise levels meet
noise level criteria in the MECP's NPC -300 noise guideline. Predicted nighttime noise
levels indicate an excess of up to 3 dBA during this period are expected.
The Study recommends the following: use of balcony barriers of appropriate height
(solid parapet made of glass) to shield any windows to sensitive spaces behind; conduct
a site visit during the cooling season to confirm modelled off-site noise levels and to
determine what additional mitigation (if any) are on the need; and warning clauses to
advise purchasers and/or tenants of potential noise from off-site noise sources. These
recommendations may change as a result of the required detailed noise study.
Notwithstanding any recommendations of the future detailed noise study, a warning
clause to advise purchasers and/or tenants of nearby noise sources associated with
residential/commercial uses, be included in a registered agreement between the
Owner/Developer and the City of Kitchener to be included in all offers to purchase
and/or rental agreements, and any future plan of condominium declaration. This should
be applicable for all residential and sensitive commercial uses within the
development. Wording as follows,
"Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of nearby commercial
facilities, sound from those facilities may at times be audible."
The Study acknowledges the temporary GO Transit Park Street Layover Facility
situated approximately 500m to the west of this development. The acoustical
assessment completed for this facility by HGC Engineering in 2010 concluded the
subject site meets applicable noise level criteria. This notwithstanding, a warning
Document Number: 3941692 Version: 1
Page 40 of 256
clause is recommended to advise of potential noise from this facility. Wording as
follows,
"Warning: Metrolinx, carrying on business as GO Transit, and its assigns and
successors in interest are the owners of lands within 300 metres from the land which
is the subject hereof. In addition to the current use of the lands owned by Metrolinx,
there may be alterations or expansions of the rail and other facilities on such lands in
the future including the possibility that GO Transit or any railway assigns or
successors as aforesaid may expand their operations, which expansion may affect
the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of
any noise and vibration attenuation measures in the design of the development and
individual dwellings. Metrolinx will not be responsible for any complaints or claims
arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under its lands."
Implementation / Certification of Building Components
An acoustical engineer, or municipal building official, will be required to certify that the
building plans include all required noise control, including central air conditioning prior to
issuance of a building permit.
An acoustical engineer, or municipal building official, will also be required to certify that
all required noise control measures have been installed.
Conclusions:
The Region requires a Holding Zone to be implemented through the Zoning By-law
Amendment to secure receipt of a detailed noise study.
In addition, special buildings components as indicated above (e.g. use of balcony
barriers of appropriate height (solid parapet made of glass)) shall be included in the
design of the building through the site plan process.
Furthermore, Development Agreements shall be required between the
Owner/Developer and the Region of Waterloo and a development agreement shall be
required between the Owner/Developer and the City of Kitchener to include the above
noted noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase and sale/lease/rental agreements
through a future consent and/or Condominium Application.
Please be advised that further requirements may come from the accepted detailed
noise study, once reviewed.
Yours truly,
Shilling Yip, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner
(Noise Study Technical Review)
Document Number: 3941692 Version: 1
Yours truly,
Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner
(Regional File Planner)
Page 41 of 256
cc. Bill Gastmeier, HGC Engineering
Jason Wigglesworth, Region of Waterloo
Document Number: 3941692 Version: 1
Page 42 of 256
Craig Dumart
From:
Niall Melanson
Sent:
Wednesday, January 5, 2022 10:15 AM
To:
Craig Dumart
Cc:
'Emir Ceric'; Angela Mick
Subject:
FW: 30 Francis Street S - ZBA Clearance
Morning Craig
Engineering & Kitchener Utilities can now provide our clearances for the ZBA.
Thanks
Niall Melanson, C.E.T.
Engineering Technologist I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 Ext. 7133 i TTY 1-866-969-9994 i niall.melanson@kitchener.ca
From: Angela Mick <Angela.Mick@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2022 12:08 PM
To: 'Emir Ceric' <Emir.Ceric@IBIG roup.com>; Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca>; Niall Melanson
<Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Marc Villemaire <mvillemaire@srmarchitects.ca>; ambrose <ambrose@in8developments.ca>; Sydney Bailey
<sbailey@gspgroup.ca>; Marie Shelley <MShelley@srmarchitects.ca>; Paul Rygielski <paul@spectrac.ca>; Tom
Kizeweter <tom@spectrac.ca>; Jeff Hayhurst <jeff@stumpffire.com>; Tyler McLean <tmclean@srmarchitects.ca>;
Julianna Arcese <julianna.arcese@ibigroup.com>; Kelly Cobbe <kcobbe@IBIG roup.com>
Subject: RE: 30 Francis Street S - 3rd Submission FSR Comments
Thank you. I'm good
From: Emir Ceric <Emir.Ceric@IBIGroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:56 AM
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>; Angela Mick <Angela.Mick@kitchener.ca>; Niall Melanson
<Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Marc Villemaire <mvillemaire@srmarchitects.ca>; ambrose <ambrose@in8developments.ca>; Sydney Bailey
<sbailey@gspgroup.ca>; Marie Shelley <MShellev@srmarchitects.ca>; Paul Rygielski <paul@spectrac.ca>; Tom
Kizeweter <tom@spectrac.ca>; Jeff Hayhurst <ieff@stumpffire.com>; Tyler McLean <tmclean@srmarchitects.ca>;
Julianna Arcese <julianna.arcese@ibigroup.com>; Kelly Cobbe <kcobbe@IBIG roup.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 30 Francis Street S - 3rd Submission FSR Comments
Hi Craig, Angela and Niall,
Please find attached our updated FSR dated January 4, 2022. Note point 6 on page 4 and Appendix D.
Please let us know if you need any additional information from us.
Page 43 of 256
City of Kitchener
OPA/ZBA COMMENT FORM
Project Address: 30 Francis St S
Date of Meeting: N/A
Application Type: OPA21/001/F/DE and ZBA21/002/F/DE
Comments Of: Parks & Cemeteries
Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross
Email: lenore.ross@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427
Date of Comments: May 20 2021
1. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
Parkland Dedication
.1 The site is located within the City of Kitchener Downtown Core Area and is currently exempt
from parkland dedication. Any changes to the exemption area affecting this proposal may
require a review of parkland dedication requirements
.2 Dedication requirements are subject to the Parkland Dedication Policy current at the time of
application
.3 Should any further revisions be made to the proposal, a revised parkland dedication may be
required.
.4 In the event of a discrepancy between the parkland dedication calculation form and this memo,
please contact the above -noted Parks & Cemeteries staff for clarification.
1 Street Trees
5 The preliminary site layout proposes street trees in planters within the right of way along
Charles St W. This is a positive landscape element and will need to be coordinated with the
Region of Waterloo as this is a Regional road. Francis St S is also noted as a Regional Road, but I
believe this is incorrect. Any required cash -in -lieu of street trees for the Francis St S frontage will
be addressed at site plan application.
.2 Trails
.6 No comment
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 44 of 256
.3 Impacts to Public Lands
.7 No comment
.4 Other
.8 No comment
2. Comments on Submitted Plans. Studies and Reports:
No comments. No requirements
3. City of Kitchener Policies. Standards and Resources:
® Parkland Dedication Policy
❑ Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law
❑ Parks Strategic Plan
❑ Cycling & Trails Masterplan
❑ Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan
❑ Development Manual
❑ Urban Design Manual
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 45 of 256
City of Kitchener
PRE -SUBMISSION CONSULTATION COMMENT FORM
Project Address: 30 Francis St
Date of Meeting: May 28 2021
Application Type: ZBA/SP
Comments Of: WRDSB
Commenter's Name: Nathan Hercanuck
Email: nathan—hercanuck@wrdsb.ca
Phone: 519-570-0003 x4459
Date of Comments: April 23, 2021
❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion)
® I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)
1. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
The WRDSB has concerns with respect to student capacity at proximate elementary and secondary
schools. As such, applicant/owner must agree in the Subdivision Agreement/Condo Declarations and/or
Site Plan Agreement to notify all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same, by inserting the
following clauses in all offers of Purchase and Sale/Lease, and that this remain on Title to the
property/unit for heirs, successors and assigns:
"Whereas the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) may designate this parcel of land as a
Development Area for the purposes of school accommodation, and despite the best efforts of the
WRDSB, sufficient accommodation may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby
notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside
the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school."
And that;
Prior to final approval, the WRDSB is to be advised in writing by the Approval Authority how the above
conditions) has/have been satisfied.
2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application:
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 46 of 256
3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval:
4. Policies, Standards and Resources:
5. Anticipated Fees:
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Waterloo Region District School Board's Education Development Charges By-law 2016 or any successor
thereof and may require the payment of Education Development Charges for these developments prior
to issuance of a building permit.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 47 of 256
City of Kitchener - Comment Form
Project Address: 30 Francis Street South
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: May 28, 2021
Date of comments: May 19, 2021
Date of revised comments: November 16, 2021
1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application:
• Sustainability Statement, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, 30 Francis
Street South. IN8 Developments. February 9, 2021. GSP Group.
• 30 Francis Street, Kitchener, Summary of sustainability Design Elements and Community Benefits.
November 4, 2021. SRM Architects Inc.
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 a 44 -storey condominium development at 30 Francis St.
S. and provided the following:
Based on my review of the supporting study the Official Plan and Zoning By Law Amendments can
be supported. In part, as the design of the building will be'LEED Inspired" and will incorporate sound
knowledge of sustainability materials and process, such as:
• Consideration for grey energy values, and other life -cycle elements that can have a major impact
on the development's energy use.
• Building envelope design that will minimize thermal bridging, maintain a high level of air
tightness, and maximize thermal comfort.
• Selection of energy efficient glazing systems.
• Selection of light -reflective roofing materials.
• Selection of plumbing fixtures with low water consumption.
• The Owner, Engineers, Landscape Architect, and Construction Manager work to develop a
project that can be built avoiding unnecessary waste and pollution of the environment, and
which aims for low maintenance costs (such as heating and cooling).
1IPage
Page 48 of 256
3. Site Plan Approval:
• a Sustainability Study (as per the City's Terms of Reference) will be required with an emphasis on
demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the City (Planning), how energy is being conserved or low
energy generated.
4. Policies, Standards and Resources:
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and
appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in
accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy
consumption.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage
orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such
orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved.or low energy generated.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the
necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the
potential for implementing district energy exists.
S. 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 49 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Sandro Bassanese
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 2:41 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: RE: 30 Francis St S - ZBA/OPA
Hey Craig
The additional information regarding the wind study will be taken into account when the block adjacent to the site
redevelops.
The urban design brief is acceptable staff will work with the consultant team to address wind impacts through the site
plan process.
Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks
Sandro Bassanese
Senior Urban Designer) Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7305 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 sandro.bassanese(a�_kitchener.ca
From: Marc Villemaire <mvillemaire@srmarchitects.ca>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 20211:54 PM
To: Sandro Bassanese <Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 30 Francis St S - ZBA/CPA
Thanks Again for the quick feedback Sandro.
I asked RWDI to advise on your questions and observations. Here is the response I have from Edyta from RWDI:
The predominant winds in Kitchener in the winter, when you will typically see uncomfortable wind conditions, are
from the westerly directions as per the wind rose below. There is a small easterly component but it is not
significant. Depending on the design of the future building across the street wind conditions will be changed
along Francis Street South. Without knowing the potential massing of the future development (footprint, height,
building setbacks etc. ) it is not possible to comment on how these conditions may change. Similar to how we saw
improvements with the implementation of wind mitigation measures on our site, if conditions are not favourable
Page 50 of 256
wind mitigation measures can be used to improve conditions. This can be confirmed by conducting wind tunnel
testing at that time.
33�;r 33
3C£
_i 70
iC�+ � 9i3L
23iJ 13+i
2V)
Zf'G 9�
I g.1i.M,
Winter (November = Apful) .
As you opined Sandro, the future development can implement additional wind mitigating features (canopies, recessed
entrances etc..) that will improve the pedestrian level of comfort. With any future development (if it isn't IN8 haha) we
would be more than happy to share our drawings and reports to assist in the optimal design to mitigate wind effects.
Regards,
Marc
Marc Villemaire
Managing Partner
sm Architects Inc.
279 King Street West, Suite 200
Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1B1
t: 519.885.5600 x216
Any documents remain the property of the architect. Unauthorized use, modification,
and/or reproduction of these documents are strictly prohibited without written permission.
From: Sandro Bassanese <Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>
Sent: December 21, 20218:58 AM
To: Marc Villemaire <mvillemaire @srmarchitects.ca>
Cc: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: 30 Francis St S - ZBA/OPA
2
Page 51 of 256
Craig Dumart
From:
Sandro Bassanese
Sent:
Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:58 AM
To:
'Marc Villemaire'
Cc:
Craig Dumart
Subject:
RE: 30 Francis St S - ZBA/OPA
Hey Mark
I read through the commentary provided regarding the wind study and it is acceptable.
My one additional concern is with future redevelopment of city owned lands adjacent across the street from 30
Francis. If a similar built form or a park similar to Francis green was proposed could wind impacts be mitigated (i.e.
through canopies, stepbacks or plantings) or would it be further exacerbated to an uncomfortable or unsafe level. If the
property redevelops I would like to ensure as much as possible that this can be mitigated and not compounded and
potentially impact your development as well.
Thanks and please call if you want to discuss further.
Sandro Bassanese
Senior Urban Designer) Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7305 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 sandro.bassanese(o)_kitchener.ca
From: Marc Villemaire <mvillemaire@srmarchitects.ca>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 20215:55 PM
To: Sandro Bassanese <Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: 30 Francis St S - ZBA/OPA
Hey Sandro
I just sent this email to Craig and saw that he is out of the office. I wanted to give you a chance to see it directly if Craig
didn't have a chance to forward it to you.
Happy holidays Sandrol
Marc
Marc Villemaire
Managing Partner
Page 52 of 256
SDrM Architects Inc.
279 King Street West, Suite 200
Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1131
t: 519.885.5600 x216
Any documents remain the property of the architect. Unauthorized use, modification,
and/or reproduction of these documents are strictly prohibited without written permission.
From: Marc Villemaire
Sent: December 17, 20215:53 PM
To: Craig Dumart (craig.dumart@kitchener.ca) <craig.dumart@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Tyler McLean <tmclean@srmarchitects.ca>; Ethan Liebster <ELiebster@srmarchitects.ca>
Subject: RE: 30 Francis St S - ZBA/OPA
Good afternoon Craig
We have compiled a Theoretical LEED checklist of items and features that we are incorporating into the
development. We should be able to share that list on Monday. With respect to Sandro's question about the wind study,
I followed up with Edyta at RWDI and she has been able to provide us with some additional information.
Locations 54, 56, 57 — winter conditions.
For locations 54, 56, 57 along Francis Street South we did see an improvement at location 57 compared to the
original test results. Wind speeds were reduced by 1 km/h in both summer and winter. Wind safety had an
exceedance at 93 km/h in the original test, this was reduced to 89 km/h now passing the wind safety criteria in
the new October test with wind mitigation measures in place.
Locations 54 and 56 remain unchanged. However, they are both 21km/h in the winter which is a very slight
exceedance of the walking criteria of 18-20 km/h. Location 57 is now 22km/h.
Unless you add wind mitigation measures along the sidewalk where these sensors are placed there is not much
more you can do on your site to address these wind conditions.
The fact that we eliminated the safety concern is great.
Locations 54, 56, 57 — summer conditions.
RWDI typically recommends walking or better wind conditions on sidewalks. Strolling wind speeds in the
summer are acceptable. There is no need to mitigate these wind conditions. The fact that the wind conditions
have increased is to be expected when you add a new building massing which now redirects more winds down
to grade.
Please let me know if you or Sandro have any more questions and would like me to setup a call with Edyta next week.
Have a great weekend guys,
Marc
Marc Villemaire
Managing Partner
s. ri-T] Architects Inc.
Page 53 of 256
City of Kitchener
ZBA and OPA Resubmission Comment Form
Project Address: 30 Francis St S
Date of Comments: December 13, 2021
Application Type: ZBA & OPA
Comments of: Urban Design
Commenter's Name: Sandro Bassanese
Email: sandro.bassanese@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7305
1. Design Brief Comments:
The following is a summary of Urban Design responses to comments provided by staff prepared by GSP
Group (IN8 Developments OPA21/001/F/DE, ZBA21/002/F/DE - 30 Francis Street South Response to
Submission Review Comments Dated: November 11, 2021)
Original Staff Comment:
The tower does not currently meet the off-site tower separation from the tower to the mid -point of the
lane to the north. The Urban Design Report does not provide a rationale for not meeting the off-site
tower separation. This should be provided as an update to the Urban Design Report.
Physical separation distance as per Tall Building Section requirements appears to be achieved on the
western side. Justification will need to be provided for the deficiency in tower separation off-site to the
north of the building.
Consultant Response:
The Urban Design Brief has been updated to address tower separation (Section 4.1). The proposed tower
is well -situated on the east side of the building podium to address tower separation of the Tall Building
Guidelines. The building tower placement provides a diagonal relationship with the existing building at 1
Victoria and will not encroach potential new developments at the north.
Staff Response:
Further justification is to be provided related to the noncompliance adjacent to Francis Green.
Original Staff Comment:
Choose an item.
Page 54 of 256
At -grade active uses are expected on the ground floor. The proposal should strive to achieve active uses
on as much of the podium frontage as possible. Where minor portions of active uses are not proposed on
upper storeys of the podium, high quality art and/or architecture is expected to screen above grade
parking.
At a minimum active use is to be provided along the ground floor within this area as per current City of
Kitchener Urban Design Manual standards (see section 13 Structured Parking). Active uses on the ground
floor level are achieved through:
• Main building entrance location at Francis and Charles intersection, Consideration is to be given
to active uses or a community accessible space at grade at this location.
Consultant Response:
Beyond providing high-quality materials and architectural features, an emphasis has been made to
enhance the pedestrian realm on both Francis and Charles Streets. Ground floor layout revisions have
been made to further activate the Francis and Charles St frontages. Providing a gym, yoga and fitness
spaces will help animate the streetscape. The added commercial retail spaces will also contribute to the
lively atmosphere of the building, at the some time screening the vehicle parking beyond. With the
addition of the commercial and retail spaces on the ground floor, more underground parking has been
added to compensate for the lost surface parking. In order to connect residents of the building to the
Francis Green space, internal programing has been redesigned to encourage that relationship.
Active uses on the ground floor level are achieved through:
• Main building entrance location at Francis and Charles intersection,
• incorporating visual cues in massing details for prominent residential lobby entrance
• Commercial units proposed with direct access from Charles Street
• Fitness centre amenity activating Francis Street with exit to Halls Lane
• Delineated pedestrian access to Francis Green from amenity exit on Halls Lane and Francis
sidewalks
Staff Response:
The revised ground floor layout is acceptable to staff and further review of the podium elements and
finishes will be undertaken through the site plan review phases.
Original Staff Comment:
The applicant should consider adding additional bicycle storage to meet current and future needs for
bike parking spaces in residential units in the downtown. This comment was heard from the community
at the Neighbourhood Meeting but also via written correspondence.
Consultant Response:
A minimum of 22 bicycle parking spaces are required to accommodate the Proposed Development (10%
of vehicle parking required). The revised concept displays 141 bicycle parking spaces: 135 secure indoor
(Type A) and 5 outdoor (Type B). This is an increase of 6 spaces from the previous submission, as well 119
auxiliary to the minimum bicycle parking spaces required.
Choose an item.
Page 55 of 256
Staff Response:
The additional bike parking as noted is acceptable to urban design staff transportation planning staff are
to provided confirmation of acceptance of additional bike parking.
Original Staff Comment:
The Wind Study should be updated to show mitigating measures for the wind impact along Charles and
Francis Streets as well as Halls Lane.
Consultant Response:
Recessed building massing, canopy overhangs and wind screens have been utilized to address any
uncomfortable winds identified around entrances, corners and down -draft locations at -grade. Furniture,
planting and wind screens have been utilized to address any uncomfortable winds founds at the Level 7
rooftop terrace.
Staff Response:
The updated wind study (dated October 1, 2021) notes acceptable levels at grade on the Francis St
Charles St and Halls lane. The Level 7 Upper Terrace modeling is to be revised to note the current
proposed landscape/rooftop amenity plan. The screen capture below is from the current revised wind
analysis
LEVEL 7
Choose an item.
Page 56 of 256
BUILDING
1:
ABOVE
:1 :■■
.1
REMOVED
{
FOR CLARfTY
OF PODIUM
®�LEVELSENSORS
I
lilil_'li__I ��
LEVEL 7
Choose an item.
Page 56 of 256
The most current proposed level 7 landscape plan (see screen capture below) provided by the applicant
does not match the one modeled in the wind study. The applicant is advised that all outdoor amenity
areas are to have sitting windspeeds in summer months and standing wind speed during winter months.
Original Staff Comments:
As this application advances, the City will be reviewing materials to ensure the use of high quality
building materials for both the podium and the tower.
Consultant Response:
Noted. Submission includes an expanded material legend of:
• Glass
• Spandrel
• Metal Panel
• Ceramic Frit Glazing
Staff Response:
Staff is supportive of the current material palette proposed and staff will work with the applicant to
further review and refine exterior fagade finishes as the project progresses.
Original Staff Comments:
Upgraded treatments proposed within the right or way are supported by City of Kitchener Urban Design
staff. The applicant is to provide confirmation that these treatments would be supported and recognized
through an encroachment agreement by Region of Waterloo staff.
Choose an item.
Page 57 of 256
tfi
MEM®
r=te �
III'
-
n�
_
—
u
II!!C■�i
III 11
30 FRANCIS
DEVELOPMENT—
n
llliNIN®
,i
AE
Original Staff Comments:
As this application advances, the City will be reviewing materials to ensure the use of high quality
building materials for both the podium and the tower.
Consultant Response:
Noted. Submission includes an expanded material legend of:
• Glass
• Spandrel
• Metal Panel
• Ceramic Frit Glazing
Staff Response:
Staff is supportive of the current material palette proposed and staff will work with the applicant to
further review and refine exterior fagade finishes as the project progresses.
Original Staff Comments:
Upgraded treatments proposed within the right or way are supported by City of Kitchener Urban Design
staff. The applicant is to provide confirmation that these treatments would be supported and recognized
through an encroachment agreement by Region of Waterloo staff.
Choose an item.
Page 57 of 256
Although the buildings footprint covers much of the site the applicant is advised to explore plantings and
upgraded streetscape elements within the Regional and City owned right of way.
Consultant Response:
The materials proposed within the Regional Right-of-way include concrete paving for the sidewalks and
curbside areas, as well as raised planters to promote additional seating opportunities for pedestrians and
canopy coverage along Charles while maintaining open views to the commercial units proposed along
that frontage. The materials proposed are similar to other local precedents within close vicinity of the
subject property and would be AODA/CPTED compliant. Final approval however would be subject to
Region of Waterloo Operations staff review through the detailed design phase of the project to
determine whether any modifications to the proposed treatments would be required.
Staff Response:
As noted previously staff is supportive of upgraded treatments in City owned and Regional ROW. The
applicant is advised to contact Regional Corridor management Staff and City Parks and Operations staff
to start discussions as to how these upgrades will be designed, installed and maintained. Details of the
above will be addressed through the site plan process.
Original Staff Comments:
Consideration is to be given to the provision of upgraded paving treatment and or an overhead structure
linking the proposed amenity area at grade to the existing Francis Green.
Consultant Response:
A consistent paving treatment will be provided across Halls Lane West that visually connects Francis
Green with 30 Francis. Refer to L1.0.
Staff Response:
The paving pattern on Halls Lane noted on Sheet L 1.1 is an excellent starting point. The applicant is
advised to contact City Parks and Operations staff to start discussions as to how these upgrades will be
designed and installed. Details of the above will addressed through the site plan process.
Original Staff Comments:
Francis Green and Francis St. S shadow impacts will need to be further reviewed to ensure conformity to
design manual standards. Staff will require further scoped shadow analysis of the green and adjacent
streetscape. The shadow times for March are to be confirmed as the times provided are not in sequential
order (Appendix A Shadow Study Graphics). Additional shadow analysis is to be provided for winter
months to ensure access to sunlight for the public realm (as per Section 9 Tall Buildings).
Consultant Response:
Shadow Analysis has been revised, including period for Winter Solstice (December 21).
Choose an item.
Page 58 of 256
The shadow analysis modelling in Appendix A (Revised November 2021) shows the potential shadowing
from the Proposed Development. It models hourly times for the period generally 1.5 hours after sunrise
and 1.5 hours before sunset for each of March 21, September 21 and December 21. It reflects the new
"net" shadows cast by the Proposed Development, over and above the existing shadows cast by the
existing built fabric.
Based on this analysis, the shadows cast by the Proposed Development are reasonable and in keeping
with the general criteria. While the December 21 periods offer less than the suggested 4 hours of the
criteria on outdoor spaces, this is mitigated by limited use of outdoor spaces at this time and the fact
many are already shadowed by the existing fabric. Sidewalks would be shaded even under as -of -right
building podium. Partial sunlight to Francis Green is maintained for majority of the tested periods, with
shadowing impacts considered as part of Francis Green Landscape Concept.
Staff Response:
The additional shadow analysis as presented by the consultant for Francis Green is acceptable.
Original Staff Comments:
Further discussion is the be provided as to how the proposed development achieves the objectives of Part
A Structured Parking Section 13.2.1 Compatibility Massing and Placement.
Consultant Response:
Urban Design Brief has been updated to address Structure Parking Guidelines and Compatibility Massing
(Section 4.2 and 6.2).
Staff Response:
The revised commentary provided is acceptable.
Original Staff Comment:
Primary entries along Francis St. S and Charles St. are to be designed to have wind speeds that allow
sitting in summer months and standing in winter months.
Staff Response:
The revised wind study appears to have achieved the above required criteria save and accept in one
location (sensor 4) see image to the right below. The Image to the left notes the proposed entry is
recessed confirmation is to be provided that wind speeds in the new entry would allow for siting and
standing as noted in the previous staff comments.
Choose an item.
Page 59 of 256
Original Staff Comment:
Through the detailed design process the applicant is to provided wind screening to ensure locations 1,14
and 57 achieve as passing wind speed (Figure 3B).
Consultant Response:
Screening and architectural features have been incorporated to achieve passing winds speeds for the
entirety of the development.
Staff Response:
The revised wind study notes passing wind speeds at locations this is acceptable to staff.
Original Staff Comment:
Predevelopment wind conditions are to be maintained on Francis Green and adjacent sidewalks. The
applicant is to provide confirmation of this through revised wind modeling.
Consultant Response:
Revised wind study has been provided.
Staff Response:
Staff have reviewed the revised wind study and there have been changes to the wind impacts along the
east side of Francis St that will need to be reviewed and addressed. (a comparison of the pre to post
development wind study has been prepared by staff and will be provided under separate cover)
Choose an item.
Page 60 of 256
, 27
26I
-' , _
MAW
WEiG�, j
0
U)
1
3
W
D FOR
LU
k
J�J'.
J/.J
-�,
'
,
Original Staff Comment:
Through the detailed design process the applicant is to provided wind screening to ensure locations 1,14
and 57 achieve as passing wind speed (Figure 3B).
Consultant Response:
Screening and architectural features have been incorporated to achieve passing winds speeds for the
entirety of the development.
Staff Response:
The revised wind study notes passing wind speeds at locations this is acceptable to staff.
Original Staff Comment:
Predevelopment wind conditions are to be maintained on Francis Green and adjacent sidewalks. The
applicant is to provide confirmation of this through revised wind modeling.
Consultant Response:
Revised wind study has been provided.
Staff Response:
Staff have reviewed the revised wind study and there have been changes to the wind impacts along the
east side of Francis St that will need to be reviewed and addressed. (a comparison of the pre to post
development wind study has been prepared by staff and will be provided under separate cover)
Choose an item.
Page 60 of 256
, 27
26I
-' , _
i
0
U)
ABOVE
3
W
D FOR
LU
Original Staff Comment:
Through the detailed design process the applicant is to provided wind screening to ensure locations 1,14
and 57 achieve as passing wind speed (Figure 3B).
Consultant Response:
Screening and architectural features have been incorporated to achieve passing winds speeds for the
entirety of the development.
Staff Response:
The revised wind study notes passing wind speeds at locations this is acceptable to staff.
Original Staff Comment:
Predevelopment wind conditions are to be maintained on Francis Green and adjacent sidewalks. The
applicant is to provide confirmation of this through revised wind modeling.
Consultant Response:
Revised wind study has been provided.
Staff Response:
Staff have reviewed the revised wind study and there have been changes to the wind impacts along the
east side of Francis St that will need to be reviewed and addressed. (a comparison of the pre to post
development wind study has been prepared by staff and will be provided under separate cover)
Choose an item.
Page 60 of 256
The wind impacts to Francis Green are acceptable as they are close to matching the predevelopment
wind speeds as noted in the original wind study.
Choose an item.
Page 61 of 256
FW: 30 Francis St S - ZBA/OPA
Dave Seller
I did work on this file and we have no concerns.
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(akitchener.ca
From: Craig Dumart <irailtaor9tOCoVi............c>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 20218:52 AM
To: Dave Seller<, v :S �Il .ir lkfi..ghener..c.�>
Subject: 30 Francis St S - ZBA/OPA
Did you review this one ? if so just wanted to double check transportation staff is okay with the bicycle
parking that is being provided. Section 4.7 of the design brief includes the bicycle parking section.
They're proposing 141 bicycle parking spaces and 241 vehicle spaces. Neither is a parking reduction.
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 kitchener.ca
rmu ll
f ' oiif
Page 62 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Bill Trick
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 3:45 PM
To: Debbie Chapman; Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 30 Francis - Tek Towers
Hello Craig and Debbie,
I work for D2L, based out of the Tannery in downtown Kitchener. I'm writing in support of the TEK town development.
High density residences is the only way out of our housing shortage. Urban sprawl isn't the solution. I'm considering
investing in a unit there myself because I believe in the future of the area. I also support retail at the ground level. I think
the developer should put in a parking license model in the planned parking garage so that near by office tenants can rent
the under utilized covered parking garage during daytime use. That will solve two problems at once. Until we build out
better public transportation, we are low on daytime parking. It will also help if/as/when the Aud moves to a downtown
location. Any time a vertical development on a tarmac in downtown Kitchener is proposed, I'm going to be in support of
it. We have way too much surface parking downtown so I'm happy to see this proposal which will be net parking positive
as it will add more parking spots than are removed. Next up, I which uhaul would be put to a better use!
Also happy to meet up downtown when safe to do so for an exchange of other ideas.
Thanks, Bill
Page 63 of 256
From: on behalf of Peter Kotwicz
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 7:53 PM
To: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Opinion on 30 Francis St South Condo Building
Hi, my name is Peter Kotwicz. I have lived on for 10 years. (Yes, Ward 10...) and thus am
directly affected by the proposed 30 Francis St South Condo Building.
I think that the 30 Francis St South proposal is a product of crazy land valuations. The much larger
neighbouring parking lots are a better fit for a highrise than 30 Francis St South. The developer likely got
a good price on the land for 30 Francis St South because the seller did not think that the land was large
enough for a 40+ story tower.
I do not support the developer's current proposal for 30 Francis South. However, I would support the
development if the developer makes any one of the changes below to their proposal:
Change #1: Increase the height of the podium. The tower portion of the building has 10-15 units per
floor which is low. I would rather that the developer build additional affordable units in a taller podium
than match the podium height to the Tannery building.
Change #2: Have the developer make a cash contribution in lieu of providing parking. The proposal sucks
(very little commercial real estate, no affordable housing, ...) because a large part of the building is taken
up by parking due to the small lot size. The best location for off site parking in my opinion is a parking
structure at the UW health campus. (A good fit because the city is subsidizing expanding the UW health
campus - https://urldefense.com/v3/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/I<itchener-
waterloo/university-of-waterloo-new-health-facility-kitchener-1.5782101 ;!!E19 NBbORQ!QJ-
ISbgMU8Q6fmsyykiZANcOvQZzQFXJaXOFscMA-mgLd2ipKUw4GMP5RuevQk6xtiiiEpY$ )
Change #3: Increase the developer's donation for affordable housing to the median price of a single
detached home in the current Kitchener housing market. (-1 million?
https://urldefense.com/v3/ https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/average-detached-home-price-passed-lm-
in-kitchener-waterloo-last-month-1.5728601 ;!!E19 NBbORQ!QJ-
ISbgMU8Q6fmsyykiZANcOvQZzQFXJaXOFscMA-mgLd2ipKUw4GMP5RuivQk6xbTYEf6g$ )
Thank you for reading. Please let me Know if you need any clarification (ex: how this building affects me
personally) and if there is anything I can do to get the developer to improve their proposal
Page 64 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Frank Voisin
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 3:22 PM
To: Craig Dumart; Debbie Chapman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis
Mr. Dumart and Ms. Chapman,
I am writing today in support of IN8 Development's high rise proposal at 30 Francis St S in Kitchener.
It is no secret that the region of Waterloo suffers from a housing affordability crisis due in large part to population
growth exceeding new housing supply year after year. Projects like IN8's go a long way toward adding much needed
supply without the negative environmental impacts of further suburban sprawl, while supporting the Region and City's
investment in the LRT.
Further, additional housing density has beneficial impacts to our core in terms of supporting our tech office ecosystem
and street level retail. This combination of dense, walkable live -work -play environments has been shown in markets
worldwide to create the vibrancy we all envision as the future of our community.
We as a community chose the objective of increasing the density of our urban core, and now it is incumbent upon us to
support those developers that attempt to build that density. I urge you to support this development proposal.
Thank you,
Frank Voisin
President
Voisin Capital Inc.
M:
W:
Kitchener, ON .
Page 65 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Debbie Chapman
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 10:05 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Taxing vacant housing etc.
Hi Craig,
Please see Bruce's comments about 30 Francis St. below. Can you please add him to your mailing list?
Debbie Chapman
Click here to subscribe to Monthly Newsletter!
Councillor I Ward 9 1 City of Kitchener 1200 King St. W. N2G 4G7
O: 519.741.2798/C:226.752.7104 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 debbie.chapman@kitchener.ca
Our 24 Hour Contact Line for Issues or Questions 519-741-2345
From: Bruce Timmins
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 20214:41 PM
To: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Taxing vacant housing etc.
Just a note in support for the idea of charging people holding vacant housing.
Society seems to be in a tight spot here as housing is both a practical necessity as well as an
investment vehicle. I find it hard to believe that the price increases of recent times have happened
without speculators involved but it should not happen at the expense of persons seeking shelter.
In any case the revenue would be a big advantage in providing more housing. It does not look like
the private sector will carry the ball here.
44 stories, Charles and Frances. I am not sure where in the process of becoming this project
exists but the location is perfect for a high rise. There is no 'residential area' aside from 4 houses
at the corner of Frances and Joseph and there is traffic access to two good traffic streets.
(Victoria and Charles) which run perpendicular to each other. I think this is more politically
viable than taking on accumulations of hallowed detached houses.
i
Page 66 of 256
Something trivial but pleasing. In the front of Victoria park this summer the city planted three
little patches of sunflowers. I think this is a great idea as the plants are not only attractive in their
own right but are a great support to birds and insects in the park.. Hope to see this again next
yea r.
Bruce Timmins.
Page 67 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Tania
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:36 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 30 Francis Street South - OPA/ZBA Neighbourhood Meeting #2
Respectfully suggest that staff could be pressing for much more.
Tania
On Dec 17, 2021, at 1:11 PM, Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Staff are supportive of the proposed community benefits which will be thoroughly described and
outlined in the staff report.
Craig
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Tania
Sent: Friday, December 17, 202112:51:15 PM
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 30 Francis Street South - OPA/ZBA Neighbourhood Meeting #2
Thanks Craig, Can you tell me, is staff recommending Or endorsing that the park be considered for
bonusing?
I'd like to add to my feedback on the community benefits package that I find the amount they are
offering for affordable housing to be a paltry amount considering the scale of this project.
It's ironic too because that parkette did have park benches before. It is my belief they were removed
because homeless people were sleeping on them.
It underscores the need for affordable housing. And that the park is what it is for a variety of reasons.
The park will evolve with the community needs. And the residents who surround it.
Francis green park does not require the intervention of the developer. And if allowed to redesign it
would surely be perceived as an amenity of the condominium they are building. Furthermore the very
fact that hundreds of new people will be living next to it will ensure that it is not underutilized (if that's
even the case).
Sincerely,
Tania Benninger
Page 68 of 256
On Dec 16, 2021, at 3:02 PM, Craig Dumaru<Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Tania,
Thank you for providing comments. Details of the park design have not been finalized. IF
the development goes ahead with this bonusing provision I will connect with our parks
staff to see what level of community engagement will be involved in the park redesign.
Craig
From: Tania
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 20217:32 AM
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 30 Francis Street South - OPA/ZBA Neighbourhood Meeting
#2
Hi Craig, Unfortunately I missed the meeting.
I am mostly supportive of this development. However I have some concern about the
bonusing being allowed for the Francis Street green that already exists. In the
Community Benefits Package letter, they contend that the park is underutilized. As
someone who lives directly across from that park, I respectfully disagree. And while the
parkette could probably benefit from some improvements, I question the merits of this
as a bonusing contribution. The City parks staff takes beautiful care of this space
already, and the gardens are some of the prettiest and well tended in all of Kitchener.
If the City does plan to allow this as a bonusing item, I would like to know if there will be
public consultation on the redesign of this park?
Thank you,
Tania Benninger
Downtown Kitchener Resident
From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Sent: November 29, 202110:15 AM
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 30 Francis Street South - OPA/ZBA Neighbourhood Meeting #2
F-1IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from th
Craig. Dumart@kitchener.ca
Hi Everyone,
Page 69 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Brad Noble <
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 1:28 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 10 Duke St West
Hi Craig,
Greatjob at the 30 Francis community meeting on Tuesday, your explanations of how developers, the City and certain
bylaws interact was very informing.
I was wondering if there is a Site Plan Application proposed.from VanMar Developers, for 10 Duke ST West available to
the community yet? lam really looking forward to what will become of this location.
Thank you
Srarl Nnhla I Too— I aarlar _
I
"Life's brighter under the sun"
This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.
Le present message dectronique (y compris les pieces qui y sont annex6es, le cas 6ch6ant) s'adresse au destinataire indiqu6 et peut contenir des renseignements
de caract6re priv6 ou confidentiel. Si vous n'6tes pas le destinataire de ce document, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer
ou de le reproduire. Si ce message vous a 6t6 transmis par erreur, veuillez en informer 1'exp6diteur et le supprimer imm6diatement.
Page 70 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Jeff Willme;
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 3:23 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: IN8 44 -storey proposal
Thanks very much Craig, I appreciate your very quick response!
(Now, if you can just convince U -Haul to sell to a developer...)
JW
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:21 PM, Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I am doing well thank you. 30 Francis Street South is located at the corner of Charles and Francis (currently a vacant
parking lot) across from the tannery building.
Page 71 of 256
From: Jeff Willmer
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 20213:19 PM
To: Craig Dumart <CraiR.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] IN8 44 -storey proposal
Hello Craig, I hope you are keeping well.
2
Page 72 of 256
I read the Waterloo Region Record story on the proposed development at Charles and Francis. lust out of curiosity,
which corner is it?
Thank you.
JW
Page 73 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Ara Parker
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 2:10 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 30 Francis Street South
Thank you so much for your prompt reply and all you do!
Happy Holidays!
Dr. Ara Parker
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:55 PM Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Ara,
Thank you for attending yesterday's meeting and your comments. Community concerns will be addressed in the staff
report going to council in the new year.
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(cDkitchener.ca
E
From: Ara Parker
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 20218:20 PM
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis Street South
1
Page 74 of 256
Hello Craig Dumart,
I appreciate the invitation to have participated in tonight's Neighbourhood Meeting.
I hope the Q & A concerns are included in comments that will be presented to those who will be reviewing this
application in February.
In addition, I remain concerned about the "appropriateness" of 44 stories.
That is a very tall (uniquely tall) building for the area.
Also, even on just the 6th floor (I'm in the Kaufman Lofts across the street) in recent high winds, debris has been flying
off balconies onto the street below - I can only imagine the debris flying from 44 stories affecting a large radius.
i Thank you,
z
Page 75 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Soo Hyun Sue Kwon
Sent: m>
Wednesday, December 15, 2021 12:53 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis Street South -44 story condo tower -concerns and issues
Dear Mr. Dumart
I am one of the owners of 1 Victoria Street South condo.
I have attended the Dec 14th Zoom meeting and I have my concerns that I would like to address.
1) Bonus agreement
I felt that there was nothing in the bonus agreement that the City of Kitchener should be excited about. I felt that that
was the minimum that the developer can do for the City and surrounding areas. The City of Kitchener can ask for more
in terms of green space, parking, and affordable housing and the developer should deliver. $300K for affordable housing
is better than nothing, but I believe that they can do better than that, and I don't understand why the City would accept
anything less than that.
2) 44 Story is too high
Infrastructure around that area is not equipped to handle 44 story building and 532 condo units.
I am not sure what kind of study states otherwise, but I am living there right now and it is not built for that. The traffic is
very bad along Victoria Street and King Street.
How about power and water supply?
I sometimes get my power on and off due to whatever reason my building would have or the area have.
3) Francis Street -Pedestrian walk is quite narrow.
Halls Lane West -Is full of UHaul trucks and delivery trucks all the time.
I saw from the proposed plan, parking in front of Francis Street South is proposed for 30 Francis Street S condo people to
drop off people etc. If you ever have walked that area, you know making that area drop off is an accident waiting to
happen.
Also, Halls Lane West is always so full of UHaul trucks that customers of UHaul park the truck anywhere in Halls Lane
West and run into the store all the time. So, at any given time, Halls Lane is blocked by the UHaul trucks,.so that Halls
Lane West becomes only one way.
And it is very dangerous and again another accident waiting to happen here as well.
Perhaps, UHaul or the City should get involved to mark the parking for UHaul more clearly or the City should mark the
Halls Lane West more clearly, so that increased traffic to this area flows better. I know there is a study done for the
traffic flow, but I don't think they live in this area.
I know that we can't legislate all human behaviors, but simple things like that may help in the long run. These are my
concerns and thank you very much for your time.
Soo Hyun Kwon
1
Page 76 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Debbie Chapman
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 12:33 PM
To: Michael Brisson; Dayna Edwards; Rosa Bustamante
Cc: Craig Dumart
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis
Thanks for your suggestions Michael. I am copying Craig Dumart, the City planner overseeing this project,
on this message.
Debbie Chapman
Click here to subscribe to Monthly Newsletter!
Councillor I Ward 9 1 City of Kitchener 1200 King St. W. N2G 4G7
O: 519.741.2798 /C: 226.752.7104 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 debbie.chapman@kitchener.ca
Our 24 Hour Contact Line for Issues or Questions 519-741-2345
From: Michael Brisson
Sent: Monday, December 13, 20218:35 PM
To: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>; Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>; Rosa
Bustamante <Rosa.Bustamante@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis
Great change - shops/cafe on Charles St. ! They need to have numbered addresses on Charles St. the "30 Francis"
sign on the Charles facade is confusing and potentially dangerous in emergencies when orientation is critical . Separate
street addresses on corner sites is standard in matures cities - see Astor Tower, Chicago as an example.
Why not move the Fitness/Yoga to Level 7 - a conventional location - rather than the awkward'units with outdoor space
at the common garden level ?
The glass street front location for Gym/Yoga has been shown to be problematic - ( the infamous Park Ave. Social conflict
in Montreal & others )- why not more shops/cafe ??
Thanks for the change on Charles - an important contribution to a better city !
Best,
Michael
Page 77 of 256
0 14 -'FA Mt- ,IJ
Page 78 of 256
3 Page 79 of 256
Sent from my Pad
Page 80 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: John MacDonald
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 9:06 AM
To: Craig Dumart
Cc: Garett Stevenson; Debbie Chapman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Francis and Charles Proposed Development
Craig,
Can you please provide a link to the newly negotiated development documents for the above -noted project.
The Kitchen er.ca/planningaPPI ications link does not appear to work, and takes me to a blank page.
Is it that my browser is incompatible?
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this development application.
I remain confused by the negotiation process that has taken place, and increasingly so after last night's NIM. Apparently
the Planning Department believes the file is but two months from Council official public meeting and decision, yet staff
and proponent are unable to articulate the actual "community benefits" that contribute to the public good and thus
deserve reward of additional density in staff's self -described "negotiating" scenario.
I assume things are basically a done "deal" at this point, given the timing, so it's disappointing that neither side in this
negotiation can point to specific targets that have been achieved and that further the public good. Nor does there seem
to be a commitment to having these targets specifically set out in the approval that staff is crafting. I'm not being harsh
here. Answers at the public meeting from both staff and proponent failed to identify credible and enforceable public
benefits in almost all cases. There should be a very high bar for achieving such benefits.
Illustrations of this situation, and I think worthy of my skepticism, include:
the Sustainability efforts outlined in the presentations and answers. They may provide private benefit (increased
quality of construction to the benefit of the buyer, lower energy use and utility bills for the renters, longer life
span for the relatively poor construction for which this building type is noted and thus lower renewal costs down
the road, etc) but there are no actual targets. Just vague statements.
o but where "is the public benefit?
o the constant reliance on the word LEED indicates a naivety on the part of planning staff regarding
sustainability. LEED means little unless specific targets are identified and agreed. It's clear this hasn't
been done and it seems clear that the developer and designer are resisting commitment to any specific
to rgets.
® as I stated at the meeting, CMHC funded projects require minimum 25% better than National
Building Code and OBC minimum for energy performance. Surely there is no public benefit until
at least this target is met. Yet there's no target at all.
® this building type (the investor condo tower) is inherently poor in terms of sustainability
because of its typically poor exterior enclosure and mechanical systems performance. The
investor class buyer is not interested in performance and it's not part of the development
strategy. Quality of construction has nothing to do with the basic real estate transaction.
Page 81 of 256
■ Staff undermines its credibility with the public by resorting to such broad statements as "LEED-
is-a-good-thing". We are a more informed audience than that, and you do us a disservice in
thinking repetition of the word "LEED" changes its actual meaning.
■ the slide showing "low flush plumbing" seems designed to show the public at the meeting how
little informed they believe us to be. Low flush plumbing is the minimum allowed by law under
the building code, and the code has increasingly strict compliance requirements for energy
conservation. None of this is a community benefit. It's the minimum allowed by law.
■ incidentally, the Sustainability slide seems designed to show the lack of respect the
proponent has for Staff, and to publicly shame Staff by implying that you go along with
this sort of thing. There seems to be no push back from Staff that at least counter the
impression. Attendees at the NIM are left wondering at staff's ability to negotiate on
behalf of our community when "the minimum allowed by law" is sold as "public benefit
to justify creation of profit through upzoning".
• energy conservation and conservation of resources is not worthy of bonusing. It's the price of a
building permit these days.
• the Proponent indicates with a straight face that
o they've done extensive market research, and also
o that they intend for the units to be owner -occupied
o if they've done the research (which no doubt they have), then they know that 80 to 90% of condo units
in the Downtown are investor and rental.
o so their statements are simply not credible and cast doubt in the public's mind about staff's
commitment to the public benefit and public good. These statements go unchallenged by staff or are
indeed repeated.
• $300,000 for affordable housing (but not in my building thank you) is about the cost of a single unit, or perhaps
the profit on less than 10 units.
o for this we as a community, through yourselves as negotiators, are expected to reward the proponent
with many times the density (and therefore units) for its targeted investor class
0 once again, the City's position leads an informed and engaged public to doubt staff's sincerity and
commitment to the public good and public benefit. You appear to be.in the developer's corner rather
than a defender of community values and longterm public good.
• 1,800 sf for commercial space adjacent a parking garage entry facing away from the Downtown, in the face of 44
storeys of development, makes the City's endorsement of this proposal as "mixed use" risible.
o once again, Staff appears to be going along with this, in the face of
• the fact that 1,800 sf is about the size of a convenience store or two
• the privatization of the Francis side of the ground floor interface which actually faces the
Downtown and should be the more pedestrian friendly street, and
• the exploitation of the existing Francis Green as a potential park for building occupants. That
parkette already exists. Where is the public benefit from the addition of some benches in the
parkette. Surely we can do that ourselves without having to reward a developer with increased
density and profit through upzoning.
• the addition of 5 3 -bedroom units means little, and even less if the 5 units are located at top of building and are
sold at penthouse prices. Where are these suites located and what is their price point?
o again, this is a project for the investor class, and statements about "owner -occupied" are disingenuous
at best.
If this development is wanted by Staff, you should say so and provide your reasoning. Present reasons for the bonusing
are unconvincing. The idea that "no decision has been reached" hides the process and creates false expectation on the
part of the public. Put simply and with reference to previous development applications, the public does not believe you,
with good reason. Once it reaches Council it's already done and wrapped in a bow (in the form of a staff report which
dares councillors to go against it and face the wrath of the OLT). The credibility of the planning profession rests upon
your ability to defend the public interest that has been articulated in the OP and the studies you undertake as a
2
Page 82 of 256
department. It's too late at Council because it's done. If your profession's idea is that public interest aligns with and is
achieved through private interest, as would appear to be the case in the weak presentation of public benefits for this
project, then why are we going through this process?
This does not bode well for the Park and Victoria application. We have unfortunately enough precedents for "towers
good - developers needs equal public benefit" already. If this is the position, please state it clearly and the community
will know where you stand. The present obfuscation benefits only the proponent.
Thank you for your consideration of this input.
John MacDonald
John MacDonald
_.. N2G 161
"The four most expensive words in the English language are: 'This time it's different."" — sir Joan
Templeton
Consider the environment before printing.
This e-mail may contain information that is confidential and is intended for the named recipient.
If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Page 83 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Zac Young
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:50 PM
To: Craig Dumart; Debbie Chapman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis and Local Traffic / Pedestrian Impacts
Hi Craig and Debbie,
Following the information session this evening for 30 Francis, I didn't feel there was a fully clear answer on the
conclusions of the traffic studies for this development. My understanding the city and regional staff reviewed within the
design standards for the roadways and didn't have specific recommendations.
What I do not feel has been given enough consideration - in a topic area asked by a few residents - was the increasing
pedestrian and active transport demands of the road infrastructure in this block.
My primary concern is the Halls Lane & Victoria St. Intersection (and Victoria St. generally)
This entrance to Victoria St from Halls Lane is routinely a negative and dangerous experience for pedestrians on the east
side of Victoria St. I would generally expect this pedestrian traffic only to increase with the coming transit hub and
residential density in this area.
Victoria St. is already one of the most unpleasant and unsafe places to walk downtown and has very little traffic calming
and separation of pedestrians from traffic. Worse, the busy road and high rate of speed along with the ION crossing has
meant 1 Victoria residents, and now 30 Francis as well, will be often blocking or hurriedly crossing a relatively busy and
narrow pedestrian route. Cars have poor line of sight coming onto Victoria and often: end up straddling the sidewalk if
there is traffic; having to cross two busy lanes to enter/exit at a high rate of speed to make a gap; or force pedestrians to
walk out of their ROW into areas that are less visible or nearer to moving traffic.
I am concerned by the safety of this intersection and the impact to the pedestrian realm by heavy car traffic into and out
of building garages as this block densifies. It seems at least in part or whole this traffic would be better to filter onto
Francis which is far less busy, potentially to the benefit of Victoria St. flow too.
Has the city and region considered:
- Making this one-way towards Francis to reduce entries onto Victoria St.
- Adding mid -road barriers/furniture to calm traffic and limit enter/exit to Northbound on Victoria.
- Or closing the Victoria access altogether?
Thanks,
Zac Young
Page 84 of 256
Page 85 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: J Brook
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 1:25 PM
To: Craig Dumart; Debbie Chapman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis
Dear Ms.Chapman and Mr. Dumart,
I will not be able to attend the information meeting next Tuesday, so I wanted to send a letterto express my discontent
with the proposal at 30 Francis.
I have two main criticisms, this building as it is propose does not allow for diverse households to take up residence, and
that we need a lot of amenities if we are to intensify the density of downtown to the extent that is proposed by
developments like these.
Small units do not allow for diverse households
These buildings are far from providing vibrant and live -able mixed housing options like some of our existing rental
towers.
Consider that the financial objectives of rental towers are to maximise occupancy and mitigate turnover; they want
people to stick around and consistently pay rent. These are generally well aligned with the place making objectives of a
City, and so the type of building they construct is aligned with place making as well. Victoria Park towers, for example
provides 1-3 bedroom units (with many 2 bedroom units), varying between 781 to 1258 square feet (Sq.Ft.). Such
buildings allow residents with various family compositions to stay in the same place through various stages of life.
In contrast 30 Francis, is currently proposing that nearly 3/4 of the units be one bedroom apartments, which limits the
type of household who can happily occupy the building. This building is designed to maximise profits for the developer,
and it's objective is not well aligned with the objective to the greater community. In a one bedroom apartment singles
cannot comfortably share their space and cost with a roommate, and one bedrooms apartments are not ideal options
for families or even downsizing couples. If the goal is densification, we need to consider the quality of the units, not just
the number of the units. This type of construction will not alleviate the current housing crunch we are experiencing in
this City as it does not appeal to diverse households, and is not a viable alternative to detached and semi-detached
homes. The single young tech workers these buildings seem to want to cater to will eventually grow up. Our new
construction should be versatile so that they can adapt to changing demographics.
Although it is understood that land is at a premium in the core which leads to proposals that try to maximize the amount
of units on a property's footprint. We (residents of Kitchener) will be living with these towers for a very long time, so we
cannot let short term goals such as fast densification and maximizing the profitability of developers be the leading
concerns in considering such developments. We need to make sure that these towers contribute positively to the
livability of our City. This problem has been repeated in major cities around Canada, these towers are often partially
vacant, or used as short term rental and do not contribute to the community as promised. We should learn from their
mistakes and make better choices when considering new developments.
If an an amendment to the floor space ratio is allowed, it should come with conditions, such as changing the
composition of the units constructed, much more two bedroom units, some three bedroom units, and much less one
bedroom units.
Place making along with densification
Page 86 of 256
My second objection to the proposed development, and also tall towers in general, is that they change the City's
demographics very quickly. Many more residents are settling in the downtown, but almost no new amenities have been
added such as green spaces, trails, parks, squares, community centres, medical buildings, schools, and daycares. By
concentrating so much development in one place without equal investment in amenities, we risk not building
neighbourhoods, and existing amenities will be overused. This is not a version of downtown Kitchener I want to continue
to live in.
Sales materials for new condos often list all the amenities that new residents can take advantage of, but these large
developments should ideally be contributing to place making in our streetscapes not just taking advantage of our
existing places. The Bauer Lofts are a great example of condo development including placemaking in their design. We
need more thoughtful design like lower storeys of the Bauer Lofts.
Summary
In summary, in reviewing this application please consider reducing the floor space ratio (FSR) from what is proposed,
insisting on a greater diversity of units if FSR is increased beyond what is allowed in the official plan, or denying
amendment to the official plan if the vast majority of units will be one bedroom apartments and it is not possible
increase amenities at the rate required to keep up with the rate the downtown is welcoming new residents.
Kind Regards,
Jacqueline Brook
Page 87 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Brad Noble
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, LUL'I 'I 1:L2 ANI
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis Development
Hi Craig!
Hope your day is good, I am a resident of Kitchener further down on Victoria St S, I will be able to see this building from
my intersection and would consider this a part of my neighbourhood. I was reviewing the supporting documentation for
the site plan approval for the 30 Francis development that is in process and wanted to give any feedback, for what its
worth.
In my opinion this development is good for the City and should get approval :
- You would have a much better understanding than me of the extreme housing supply issue we have so I wont go into
details!
-Currently a derelict parking lot, I don't see much more we could use this land for that makes sense (Creating housing
and jobs)
- Our growing population will not be slowing down anytime soon due to our booming economy
- As for the height, the location cannot get anymore 'downtown' than this (No family homes near by) currently an under
utilized surface parking lot. Thus I don't think height should be a factor. (There are taller developments in the works, and
I suspect more are coming!) I would even say the developer could add a few more floors of affordable housing, this
way still profitable for them, compromising with the City and community, and helping the dire housing supply
- From the report it looks like the traffic and shadow studies check out
- The developer is known for using subpar architecture and cheap building materials (Eg. DTK Condos which many
people call an eye -sore) However, this development does have a lot more promise! (curved balcony glass, frosted
glazing panels, a sleek white spandrel material list, and a well .thought out podium. I think this will look much better than
DTK condos/Garment St) This has to account for something as we will be looking at it for many years Q — I do not think
the design should be revised.
Thanks for your time, have a great one!
Brad Noble
This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.
Le present message electronique (y compris les pieces qui y sont annexees, le cas echeant) s'adresse au destinataire indique et peut contenir des renseignements
de caractere prive ou confidentiel. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire de ce document, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer
ou de le reproduire. Si ce message vous a ete transmis par erreur, veuillez en informer 1'expediteur et le supprimer immediatement.
Page 88 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: edit pesti
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 3:56 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Dayna,
Thank you for your responds and the opportunity to express our concerns about DTK development at the
zoom meeting last night.
It was interesting to see that most of the speakers felt uneasy about the same issues as I did. Just out of
curiosity, can you please, let me know how many people/households got notified about 30 Francis St., and
how far the radius of these notifications was extended?
Thank you for your time,
Edit Pesti
From: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Sent: June 3, 20211:53 PM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Subject: thank you & post engagement survey
Good Afternoon,
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to you for taking the time to attend and share feedback at last night's
neighbourhood meeting for the proposed development at 30 Francis Street South. It is through public input early on in
the planning process that we are able to work together to achieve high quality new development here in Kitchener.
As mentioned last night, I am attaching a link to a post -meeting survey for your consideration. Filling this out will help us
improve upon our community sessions. Planning- Public Engagement Survey I EngageWR
This isnot the last opportunity to provide feedback, and we will be in touch in the coming months with respect to future
opportunities for engagement.
In the meantime, a copy of the presentation, the recording of the session and any additional information will be
provided in the coming days at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Any additional feedback or comments can be provided to myself via this email,
Let me know if you have any questions,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca
r 661
Page 89 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Dayna Edwards
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:04 AM
To: Gail Pool
Cc: Niall Lobley; Debbie Chapman
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Hi Gail,
That is correct, towards the end of the planning process, an applicant can apply to turn a building into a condominium,
however planning decisions cannot be made based on the tenure or proposed tenure of a building.
At this time, there currently are no mechanisms in place to ensure a percentage of affordable units. Under Section 37 of
the Planning Act, a tool called bonusing can be used in certain geographies of the city to secure some affordable
housing, however these agreements need to be put in place prior to September 20222 as the Province has recently
disbanded this tool. It is anticipated that inclusionary zoning will replace this as a tool for ensuring affordable units in
private developments. The definition of what is affordable and how the program will work, will have to be worked out in
the future. The City is currently commencing the inclusionary zoning study and if you are interested in becoming
involved, I would recommend you reach out to my colleague Tim Donegani @ tim.donegani kitchener.ca
Many thanks,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca
1121111
gn' A_
From: Gail Pool, n>
Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 2:23 PM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Niall Lobley <Niall.Lobley@kitchener.ca>, Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Hi Dayna,
Thanks for your information. I appreciate you taking the time from what must be a busy schedule.
Just to be clear, you wrote that the city cannot dictate tenure under the Planning Act. Does that mean
that a building can be designed and pass approval at every level to being issued a building permit
and the builder can later choose whether to have rental apartments or condos? If that is the case,
how can the city address affordable housing needs? I have another question: can the city require a
certain percentage of units be affordable and what would be considered affordable?
Gail
Page 90 of 256
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 9:40 AM Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Gail,
To answer some of your questions, I believe the City is starting to track the number of owner occupied condos vs the
number that are rented. However, under the Planning Act, we cannot dictate tenue, therefore if units are occupied by
owners or rented out as an investment—this information cannot be considered in our decision.
With respect to investment condos being owned and not rented, vacant land taxes have been levied in other
jurisdictions, however this is beyond the scope of this application.
The City will be actively pursuing a mixture of unit sizes as part of this development to appeal to families and to provide
for a mix of people and lifestyle varieties in the downtown.
I want to thank you for your comments and feedback as part of this application and I hope that you are able to
participate in the City's Places and Spaces study commencing soon,
Thanks,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca
(rgmwfln"u ��,4`
From: Niall Lobley <Niall.Lobley@kitchener.ca>
Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 at 12:29 PM
To: 'Gail Pool'
Cc: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards kitchener.ca>, Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Good afternoon Gail,
2 Page 91 of 256
Thank you for this; my apologies, Places and Spaces is a Parks and Open Space strategy that will speak to park access
and provision in a growing and changing City; it does not address the planning queries you raise below. This strategy
will be widely promoted over coming months as we start the engagement process, but again, I should stress that this is
only in respect to parks space provision. I can leave these questions for Dayna to respond to as she is able to. I remain
more than happy to address and provide answers to any park related questions you may have.
Many thanks, Niall
Niall Lobley (Pronouns: him/he/his)
Director, Parks & Cemeteries I Infrastructure Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2600 x 4518 1 Cell 519-505-4958 1 niall.lobley@kitchener.ca
From: Gail Pool
Sent: Monday, June 7, 202111:16 AM
To: Niall Lobley <Niall.Lobley@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>; Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman2kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Hi Niall,
have questions about development in the core that I hope you are considering. As you know, the
city undertook a study of how to engage the public in a more effective way. Yet I only heard about
this study when the NIM was held on Francis. So will the study be inclusive of the people who now
live in the city's centre? Will each development proposal consider the ultimate
consumer/buyer/renter and the needs of the people who want to live in the core?
Page 92 of 256
In brief, I suggest that there is a problem with the density target when it does not equally consider
the amenity issue and housing issues for all levels of income. So, should the city support high rise
density when the units are, as in the Francis case, 3/4 one bedroom units of about 650 square feet?
Yes, we may be getting high tech immigrants who want to live in the core, but will amenities and
entertainment venues make it an attractive place? What is available now in downtown Kitchener?
The overall plan needs to be re-examined. The city's Places and Spaces cannot come too soon
because planners need to field applications as they are proposed.
So I have several questions:
1. The Covid effect has shown that as people work from home, they now realize that there is not enough
space in their one bedroom condos. The amenities and desire to avoid commuting that drew people to
the centre are no longer a factor, so they move to the exurbs to have a bigger space. The attached
article explains some of this effect.
2. Will condos be only an investment? What about a non-resident tax? Is the amount of non-resident
ownership being studied?
3. Will we have dark towers with nobody resident?
4. Will low income residents be displaced?
5. There is a lack of variety in development proposals with almost no 2 or 3 bedroom condo units that
might house a family. This leads to a uniformity in income with little lifestyle variety.
So, which of these concerns are being addressed/studied?
Gail
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:41 AM Niall Lobley <Niall.Loblev@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Good morning Gail, Cllr Chapman,
I would be happy to talk to you about Places and Spaces, timelines and the opportunities for public engagement —
which will be a key element of this.
Many thanks, Niall
Page 93 of 256
Niall Lobley (Pronouns: him/he/his)
Director, Parks & Cemeteries I Infrastructure Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2600 x 4518 Cell 519-505-4958 niall.lobleyC)kitchener.ca
A6101
From: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 7, 20219:32 AM
To: Gail Pool
Cc: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>; Niall Lobley <Niall.Lobley@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Hi Gail,
Thank you for your email and your participation in the meeting last week. The Places and Spaces Study will be an
internal study completed by City staff and there will be opportunities for engagement throughout the process. Look
for this commencing later this year. I will be sure to forward your comments and interest to the Parks team running
this project.
With respect to 30 Francis, I appreciate you taking the time to share your experience with me. I will be reviewing your
comments and feedback, in conjunction with others received,,and studies provided in support of this development,
when providing a planning position to Council. Your comments (without your name or address or anything that
identifies you personally) will be included in the City's record and will be provided to Planning Committee and Council
with staff's recommendation on this development.
5
Page 94 of 256
Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any further questions/comments,
Many thanks,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwardsokitchener.ca
10
011",
t "
1_ _
From: Gail Pool
Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 at 8:16 AM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchen er.ca>
Cc: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Hi Dayna,
I would certainly be interested in the Spaces and Places study you mentioned. Is this an internal
study or will there be an opportunity to have a community forum or charrette? There is a lot of
concern about the public realm, as the chat and questions showed. You may not have time to read
community responses, but Facebook posts also show a lot of dismay at the proposed development.
In short, there is a lot of hesitation to have such a large tower on such a small space.... unless the
city commits to balancing density with additional open spaces. In other words, approval might be
forthcoming but only if there is balance. Density drives planning but we need to plan for amenity
proximity.
I am more in favour of the type of development at Station Park, where limited open space is
included in the proposal. Also, the Station Park proposal is a mixed development with commercial
space, even a grocery if the developers can convince a chain to go there.
6 Page 95 of 256
The Francis street developer talks about amenities on site for residents, but these are a place on
the podium, bike racks, etc. People do not remain in their apartments, so there needs to be a
balance there as well. We need to design our city centre so that residents can get what they need
(food, medicine) within a 15 minute walk. People who live in high rises need such services and they
do not appear on their own without planning for them. The developer also mentions how the
proposed high rise is close to Victoria Park. That is fine, but developments elsewhere in the
downtown are also within a short walk of the park, which is already crowded. Covid has
exacerbated the crowding, but then we may. have more pandemics in the future. Plan for them and
increase public spaces.
As a delegation to one meeting put it, we are responding to proposals as we must; however, what
we need is for planners to offer proposals and see who can come up with the best plan. I realize
that such planning is difficult, but it is being done in other places as I have discovered at C4O and 8
80 Cities, to cite only two examples.
Gail
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:54 PM Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards kitchener.ca> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to you for taking the time to attend and share feedback at last night's
neighbourhood meeting for the proposed development at 30 Francis Street South. It is through public input early on
in the planning process that we are able to work together to achieve high quality new development here in
Kitchener.
7 Page 96 of 256
As mentioned last night, I am attaching a link to a post -meeting survey for your consideration. Filling this out will help
us improve upon our community sessions. Planning - Public Engagement Survey I EngageWR
This is not the last opportunity to provide feedback, and we will be in touch in the coming months with respect to
future opportunities for engagement.
In the meantime, a copy of the presentation, the recording of the session and any additional information will be
provided in the coming days at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Any additional feedback or comments can be provided to myself via this email,
Let me know if you have any questions,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca
I_!
8 Page 97 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Gail Pool <
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 11:48 AM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis St South OPA21/001/F/DE
Hi Dayna,
would like to be kept informed about this development... Can you tell me what is being requested for
the setbacks and density requirements? Can anybody view the details about this proposal before the
meeting?
Secondly, is an HIA required since the Lang Tannery is on the non -designated registry?
Thanks, Gail
-.
(W�Gail Pool
Kitchener, ON N2G 1Z5
Page 98 of 256
�rr here _ -
fol ytvA� �''
B�
^;> .�� i
From: J Brook
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 20213:49 PM
To: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis S & 20 Queen Street
Dear Ms. Chapman,
I received your newsletter yesterday and was heartened to hear about neighbourhood and pilots projects in our ward
that make our ward so livable and vibrant.
I am contacting you regarding two new proposed developments in the downtown core, 30 Francis S & 20 Queen Street.
These are proposed to be 44 and 34 storeys tall respectively.
When my spouse and I decided to settle in downtown Kitchener in 2009 we were attracted to the community spirit in
the core, the incremental and thoughtful revitalization that was occurring such as the resurfacing of the King St in the
downtown, development of old industrial buildings like the Kaufman lofts, the Tannery, the Arrow Lofts, 72 Victoria St
S, and affordable but livable housing options like the Bread and Roses Cooperative housing and made for rental towers
with large floor plans like the Iron Horse towers and Victoria Park Towers.
In the time we've been here, the revitalization has continued with investments in transportation (e.g. downtown
cycling network, ION, transportation hub), and investment in the community (e.g. new central public library building,
public washrooms in Victoria Park, and a commitment to updating and maintaining neighbourhood parks).
We are proud to live in Kitchener, a City that seems committed to do things differently than other growing
communities in southern Ontario. In the last couple years though, there has been a worrying trend of allowing very
large glass condo towers consisting of predominantly small one bedroom apartments to be built in our core. Every new
proposed tower seems to be asking to be built taller with smaller units. We now have an inconsistent and unpleasing
juxtaposition of 2-4 storey buildings standing beside the 18-20 storey glass towers. These buildings are being built in
the name of densification of the urban core, but I contend that they do not do so in a desirable way and they are
changing our city's skyline permanently.
Unaesthetic Cityscape
I expect that it is the rare person who drives through downtown Mississauga or the westside of Toronto along the
Gardner and Lakeshore and thinks "What a great place, 1 wished I lived here!". Although there are beautiful examples
of apartment towers in built up cities across the world, the best we seem to be able to hope for in Southern Ontario is
"not that ugly".
While towers will reasonably be part of the cityscape in Kitchener, we need to consider how high is too high. For
example 20 Francis St S, at 44 storeys high would be more than double the height of One Victoria next door (18 storeys
high), which is already very high compared to its neighbouring properties (the pharmacy building and Kofman lofts).
Similarly, 20 Queen Street, proposes caping an existing low rise building with a tower 30 storeys above all the low rise
mixed-use buildings surrounding it on Queen Street.
Small units do not allow for diverse households
Other than being inconsistent and non complementary to our existing cityscape, these buildings are far from providing
vibrant and live -able mixed housing options like some of our existing rental towers.
Page 99 of 256
Consider that the financial objectives of rental towers are to maximize occupancy and mitigate turnover; they want
people to stick around and consistently pay rent. These are generally well aligned with the place making objectives of a
City, and so the type of building they construct is aligned with place making as well. Victoria Park towers, for example
provides 1-3 bedroom units (with many 2 bedroom units), varying between 781 to 1258 square feet (Sq.Ft.). Such
buildings allow residents with various family compositions to stay in the same place through various stages of life.
In contrast 20 Francis, is currently proposing that nearly 3/4 of the units be one bedroom apartments, which limits to
the type of household who can happily occupy the building. This building is designed to maximize profits for the
developer, and it's objective is not well aligned with the objective to the greater community. In a one bedroom
apartment singles cannot comfortably share their space and cost with a roommate, and one bedrooms apartments are
not ideal options for families or even downsizing couples. If the goal is densification, we need to consider the quality of
the units not just the number of the units. This type of construction will not alleviate the current housing crunch we are
experiencing in this City as it does not appeal to diverse households, and is not a viable alternative to detached and
semi-detached homes.
Although it is understood that land is at a premium in the core which leads to proposals that try to maximize the
amount of units on a property's footprint. We (residents of Kitchener) will be living with these towers for a. very long,
time, so we cannot let short term goals such as fast densification and maximizing the profitability of developers be the
leading concerns in considering such developments. We need to make sure that these towers contribute positively to
the livability of our City. This problem has been repeated in major cities around Canada, these towers are often partially
vacant, or used as short term rental and do not contribute to the community as promised. We should learn from their
mistakes and make better choices when considering new development, especially since the City is effectively
subsidizing some of these developments by waiving development fees. If the City is subsidizing these developments it
should have real demands of the developers of the type of buildings it wants to have built.
Throwaway buildings
Another concern with these towers is that they are proposing to use glass wall construction, which provides a sexy
exterior, great views and is cheap to build, but has a high cost for the owners as it has a short life cycle and is not
energy efficient. Consider that condo towers are often built with glass walls (cheap with a short life cycle), but rental
towers are mostly built with masonry walls and conventional windows (more expensive but a long life cycle). In
summary when a developer is committed to a building long term as a rental property they don't choose glass walls, and
when they aren't committed to a building longterm unsuspecting owners that get stuck footing the bill for this cheap
design in perpetuity. We should not be allowing this kind of unsustainable construction in our community! Here is a cbc
article on the subject: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/throw-away-buildings-toronto-s-glass-condos-
1.1073319
Place making along with densification
My last objections to the towers being proposed, and also tall towers in general, is that they change the City's
demographics,very quickly. At this rate it is changing faster than the City is building new amenities for the new
residents such as green spaces, trails, parks, squares, schools, and daycares. By concentrating so much development in
one place without equal investment in amenities, we risk not building neighbourhoods, we will have the overuse of
existing amenities, and in this case we also risk creating sleeper towers for people working in the GTA. This is not the
Kitchener my spouse and I were drawn to.
Sales materials for new condos often list all the amenities that new residents can take advantage of, but these large
developments should ideally be contributing to place making in our street scapes not just taking advantage of our
existing places. The Bauer Lofts are a great example of condo development including placemaking in their design. We
need more thoughtful design like the Bauer Lofts integrated in its lower storeys.
Conclusions/or Request
Page 100 of 256
-Just because some less than ideal towers have been constructed or broken ground does not mean that w
continue to allow this type of construction to proceed throughout the City with each gettingbigger s should
the last. We especially should not be subsidizing these developments by waivin d gger and less livable than
subsidize construction of towers, it should be to encourage larger 2-3 bedroom of
g affordable
apartments
fees. If our City r to
bedroom apartments. fordable apartments not luxury 1
- The proposed heights of 30 Francis S & 20 Queen Street are too high. 30 Francis should
neighbouring property at Victoria One (18 storeys) maximum. At 20 Queen Street, 34 storeys willll ed look nce height edibu the
place and is a ridiculous proposition. To be in keeping with the aesthetic nearby out of
reasonable. y a 5-8 storeys seems much moree
- If the City is wants to encourage densification, it also needs to create more comm
on green spaces, squares, trails, and it also needs to encourage more amenities to be established
d the form of parks, small
stores, health services, merchants, and day cares. hed in the core like grocery
- We should try to achieve more densification through changes to zoning, such as
the CRoZBY initiative, allowing and
encouraging more small apartment buildings, duplexes and triplexes to be built in existin nei
encourage mid rise building instead of single family dwellings in new developments. g ghbourhoods, and
- If we subsidize large developers could we not subsidize small scale developers like people
make infills? p ple who might split their lotto
Yours truly,
Jacqueline
Page 101 of 256
Craig Dumart
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 10:35 AM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] public meeting tonight
Good morning. My husband and I would like to watch this meeting. We are very interested in this issue as
we live on Michael Street. We have been living in a construction zone for several years. We also don't
want Kitchener to keep on the path that Waterloo has taken with its large number of highrises. We are
aware of the fact that one of the condos on Victoria Street (across from Oak Street) was 75% to 80% sold
to investors - not people who actually live there.
Please send us the link to the meeting tonight.
Thanks
Jane Harding and Michael Canivet
Page 102 of 256
Craig Dumart
From:
Jeffrey Bennett
Sent:
Thursday, June 10, 2021 3:13 PM
To:
Dayna Edwards
Cc:
Debbie Chapman
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] RE: RE: 30 Francis Street South at Charles
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good afternoon, Dayna.
Thank you for sending me the three documents that I had requested in my June 2, 2021 email
(below).
I have just now checked the City's web pages for the Supporting Documents (for both OPA and ZBA
applications) and note that none of these three documents have been posted there yet.
While I appreciated receiving the documents directly, my expectation was that these three documents
would soon also be posted on the City's website so that they form part of the public record for. these
applications and, thus, would be available for other interested parties to see.
Please advise when these documents will be posted on the Supporting Documents web page.
At this time, I have two additional document requests:
- Record of Pre -Submission Consultation Meeting (held August 11, 2020);
o Both the OPA and ZBA Applications indicate this document was included as part of
the applications package, but I did not notice the Record on either of the Supporting
Documents web pages.
- Phase One ESA report.
o Perhaps the Record of Pre -Submission Consultation Meeting will speak to this
matter, but given that the location of the 30 Francis St S property is relatively close
to areas where there have been environmental remediation efforts (i.e. removal of
coal tar) and other warehouse/manufacturing operations that I suspect would have
been sources of ground pollution (e.g. tanneries, gas station, etc.), I would have
expected a Phase One ESA to have been prepared for this site.
Thanks for your assistance.
Jeffrey Bennett
From: Dayna Edwards[mailto:Dayna. Edwards@kitchener.ca]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2021 11:51
To: 'Jeffrey Bennett'
Cc: Debbie Chapman
Subject: RE: RE: 30 Francis Street South at Charles
Hi Jeffrey,
Page 103 of 256
My apologies, the items you requested were not posted online. I have attached them for your review. The
remaining items as part of the submission have been posted at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Let me know if you have any additional questions,
Dayna Edwards, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1,TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards(a),kitchener.ca
From: Jeffrey Bennett
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 202112:55 PM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 30 Francis Street South at Charles
Dayna, I followed that link and was unable to identify those documents - either on the page that
appeared or in the Supporting Documents page that was accessible through the first page. .
Please advise how I can find these documents.
Please call, if that would be most effective in answering this matter.
Thank you.
Jeffrey Bennett
From: Dayna Edwards[mailto:Dayna.Edwards(a�kitchener.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 12:20
To: Jeffrey Bennett
Cc: Debbie Chapman
Subject: Re: 30 Francis Street South at Charles
Hi Jeffrey,
They should all be posted here www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications.
Happy to hear you are able to attend tonight's meeting,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
5197741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca
��41V Cit �I
From: Jeffrey Bennett
Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2U21 at 1z:.io rive
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis Street South at Charles
2 Page 104 of 256
Hello, Dayna.
have received a link, from Tara, for this evening's meeting. Thank you.
Please provide a link to a page on the City's website where I can retrieve the following documents:
• Official Plan Amendment Application .
Zoning By-law Amendment Application
• Cover letter from GSP Group that was provided when the OPA & ZBA Applications, and other
supporting documents, were presented to the Planning Division.
was unable to find these items on the "Supporting Documents" page for this proposal.
Thank you.
Jeffrey Bennett
From: Jeffrey Bennett
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 10:50
To: 'Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca'
Subject: Please forward link for Zoom information meeting tonight regarding proposed development at Francis and
Charles.
Please forward link for Zoom information meeting tonight regarding proposed development at Francis
and Charles.
Thank you.
Jeffrey Bennett
3
Page 105 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Jeremy Chamilliard
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 6:02 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Dayna,
Thank you for organizing the neighbourhood meeting last night. I thought it was excellent and Richard did a great job
moderating and keeping it on schedule.
To make the next one even better, I thought that the purpose and scope of the meeting might have been clarified so we
didn't spend so much time debating city and region policies that were not specific to 30 Francis.
My personal interests are for more discussion of the impacts to 1 Victoria in subsequent meetings about the project.
Hope that helps!
Regards,
Jeremy
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:54 PM Dayna Edwards <D_a_yna.Edwards@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to you for taking the time to attend and share feedback at last night's
neighbourhood meeting for the proposed development at 30 Francis Street South. It is through public input early on in
the planning process that we are able to work together to achieve high quality new development here in Kitchener.
As mentioned last night, I am attaching a link to a post -meeting survey for your consideration. Filling this out will help
us improve upon our community sessions. Planning - Public Engagement Survey I EngageWR
This is not the last opportunity to provide feedback, and we will be in touch in the coming months with respect to
future opportunities for engagement.
In the meantime, a copy of the presentation, the recording of the session and any additional information will be
provided in the coming days at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Any additional feedback or comments can be provided to myself via this email,
Let me know if you have any questions,
Dayna Edwards
i
Page 106 of 256
Craig Dumart
From:
John MacDonald
Sent:
Monday, May 31, 2021 2:37 PM
To:
Dayna Edwards
Cc:
Tara Zhang
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Re: 30 Francis Street South IN8 Developments 44 -storey Proposal - June
2nd neighbourhood meeting
Thanks Dayna
You are ahead of us, and that's great.
John
On May 31, 2021, at 10:08 AM, Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi John,
Thank you in advance for attending Wednesday's meeting and for your comments and feedback. The circulation was
indeed expanded (somewhat) on this application, how the City is looking at process improvements that would increase
the circulation on these files. I would agree with you, that this is not a statutory public meeting and therefore the
circulation should be 'above and beyond' what is required in the Planning Act. This is a work in progress and I'm
optimistic we will see positive change in this regard in the future.
The local neighbourhood association was circulated on this application,
Looking forward to Wednesday night's meeting,
Thanks,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 davha.edwards@kitchener.ca
<image001.png> <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png>
<Image006.png> <image007.pn9> <image008.png>
From: John MacDonald >
Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 at 7:32 AM
To: Tara Zhang <Tara.Zhang@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis Street South IN8 Developments 44 -storey Proposal - June 2nd neighbourhood
meeting
Ta ra,
Please register me for the upcoming June 2nd 7 pm online neighbourhood meeting regarding this project.
John MacDonald
„a I IIVC Cxdt-LIy Lwu LAUt-1\.> I I U1 I I Ll 11.� project but haven't received any notice of the meeting, I'd ask that the City please
ensure that notice is distributed beyond the owners of the parking lots and a strict Planning Act radius. As the meeting is
not "necessary" under the Planning Act (as I understand) then the notification also need not be strictly according to a
radius.
Such a development affects neighbourhoods both in and surrounding the downtown, for the pressure it will put on scant
public amenities in the Downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods. Can the DTK neighbourhood representatives
please be notified, as well as all Neighbourhood Associations surrounding the Downtown?
Thanks kindly
Page 107 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Dayna Edwards
Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 10:38 AM
To: john Stannard
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Good Morning John,
I appreciate you taking the time to attend the virtual public meeting and to share your experience with me. I will be
reviewing your comments and feedback, in conjunction with others received, and studies provided in support of this
development, when providing a planning position to Council. Your comments (without your name or address or anything
that identifies you personally) will be included in the City's record and will be provided to Planning Committee and
Council with staff's recommendation on this development.
The wind study, in addition to all of the other studies have been posted online at
www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications. The 2023 construction commencement date is a target at the moment. The
project is in the early stages of the planning process and approvals by the City/Region have not been granted.
Sincerely,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards(akitchener.ca
01 1
MIR
I CID 61.uv
From: john Stannare
Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 at 8:20 AM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchen er.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Dear Ms. Edwards,
Thank you for the virtual meeting this week and the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed
development. Our concerns are somewhat different than those expressed at the meeting and are
largely concerning the real world impacts of being a very close neighbour across Hall's Lane at 417
King St. West. In general we are in favour of the development and were impressed by some of the
design features shown in the presentation. The proposed interior pick up and drop off area at ground
level will alleviate issues on Hall's Lane to some extent and appears to be a new innovation in
Waterloo Region. Our major concerns are listed below and are a result of experience with our close
proximity to Victoria 1.
1) Our building is completely dependent on Hall's Lane and any impediment to access will be difficult
for the 5 downtown businesses in the building which employ 30 people and have a constant flow of
customers and clients.
Page 108 of 256
2) Related to this the proposed development has a "Zero Lot Line " footprint, this poses huge
problems during construction. Where are the cranes and other equipment going to be positioned,
where is access for supplies, concrete trucks etc.
3) During construction of Victoria 1 our parking lot was showered with debris and on 1 occasion a
piece of steel pipe was dropped from 11 stories up and went right through the hood of a car belonging
to an employee of the Ziggy's Store. If it it had hit her it would have been fatal. There are technologies
in use in Toronto where a shroud is placed around the building as it goes up. This would avoid a
potential disaster and a lot of blowing garbage in the downtown.
4) One continuing impact of the building is access for the lifetime of the building for trades and service
people who are engaged either in maintenance activities, deliveries or upgrades. Many of their
vehicles are too high to go inside or fit under the overhangs. The result is that they park illegally in our
lot and displace people who need to be there, or block Hall's Lane. Over the years this has led to a
great deal of friction and unpleasant exchanges with trades people who just want to get their job
done. Attention to the detail, particularly height clearance of the ground floor could avoid most of this
and reduce the number of calls to Bylaw.
5) There will be some impact of wind at ground level. The Victoria 1 tower has resulted in a huge
increase in wind speed in the area of our building. We have had to replace, repair or upgrade the
doors on the back of the building several times and customers have had doors pulled out of their
hands, very alarming. The presentation referred to a study by RWDI, is that available for review?
6) In the discussion period a start date of 2023 was mentioned. Is there a schedule for the
construction? We realise we are at an early stage and things will change as the process evolves.
Thank you again for involving us in the process and we look forward to some feedback on our
concerns.
Best Regards
John Stannard and Margaret Pachnik
On Thursday, June 3, 2021, 01:54:12 p.m. EDT, Dayna Edwards <dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to you for taking the time to attend and share feedback at last night's
neighbourhood meeting for the proposed development at 30 Francis Street South. It is through public input early on in the
planning process that we are able to work together to achieve high quality new development here in Kitchener.
As mentioned last night, I am attaching a link to a post -meeting survey for your consideration. Filling this out will help us
improve upon our community sessions. Planning - Public Engagement Survey I EngageWR
This is not the last opportunity to provide feedback, and we will be in touch in the coming months with respect to future
opportunities for engagement.
Page 109 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: KATHY STORRING i>
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 3:23 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Cc: Debbie Chapman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Francis Street condos
Good afternoon Dayna:
Thank you for hosting the recent public meeting on the Francis Street condos and for accepting feedback.
First, I wish to echo some of the overall concerns brought up by meeting participants, mainly:
Victoria Park really is getting close to exhaustion, even off-season. As well, at many times of the day, Jubilee
Drive is a busy thruway rather than a cruise through a beautiful park. The Francis Street development— plus
Charlie West— will push the park to the brink.
Affordable housing has become a huge issue downtown. Family -sized housing is yet another matter. Our condo
frenzy is a missed opportunity to address that. (At the very least, why can't the ever-present promise of main
floor commercial space be housing units?) We keep hearing about how condos are going to create a vibrant DTK
— let's make sure the "ordinary people" who work in restaurants, retail, charities or support jobs are still
welcome.
® Is 44 storeys too high? Of course, it is and the city's FSR proves it. Surely, the last thing the city needs is a "my
condo is bigger than your condo..." competition.
Overall:
I can't help but wonder why city planners and council are still catering to developers as if we are desperate for their
business.
In the beginning that was true, and the City rightly waived fees to attract new growth. But now the tables have turned as
demonstrated by the runaway push for development. The City should realize that and take back control:
The official plan — presumably created in good faith to balance the mantra of "density" with a DTK vision we can
be proud of — should be an ..."official plan," not the lowest rung in the negotiations with developers. It was clear
at the meeting that the Francis Street developer has nothing but contempt for the rules set out in the official
plan. His explanation was that the other guys have broken the rules big time, so he should be able to do that
too. Wow.
And IF a developer has a solid reason for breaking the official plan, why are the penalties not clear cut? (And yes,
they should be framed up as penalties, not bonusing.) The Francis consultant fed the public a message about a
commitment to affordable housing, but would not be pinned down —this from a developer who could describe
the building inch -by -inch. This should not be a matter of future negotiation — or worse still, platitudes. If the
tradeoff for this development is affordable housing, THE CITY should be telling HIM what that means.
Page 110 of 256
The development frenzy is changing our streetscape rapidly and forever. Residents need to know that the City is in
control and has a clear vision of where we are heading.
Kathy Storring
Page 111 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Kyla Abbott
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 1:05 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPA21/001/F/DE amendment application ZBA21/002/F/DE
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Dayna,
we are all for new develops in the downtown Kitchener core.
The only concern is the proposed height. 44 stories is much too high.
I think 24 stories is much more reasonable.
1 Victoria St. S is around 20 stories
100 Victoria St. S is around 20 stories
Going up to 44 stories all in the same area - in a downtown core that doesnt have such high rises.would be very out of
place.
It will also have a great impact on the area given the much larger number of units proposed.
Thank you for asking for feedback
Kyla
Page 112 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Michael Brisson
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 7:01 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Charles & Francis
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Dana,
High water table towers were underway in Calgary in the late '60s
Ask the architects & developer to call
Jeremy Sturgess in Calgary. I am sure somebody has built a parking podium wrapped with units there - it is 20211
Jeremy will be able to direct you.
Say hi to Jeremy - he is a smart & helpful guy.
Cheers
Michael
Sent from my Phone
Begin forwarded message:
From:. Michael Brisson n>
Date: May 5, 2021 at 12:43:53 PM EDT
To: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>, Debbie Chapman
<Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Charles & Francis
Hi Debbie,
This is the worst developer in the region . The differences between the images shown for approval & the
final results on their Waterloo Northdale & their DTK tower on the former church site on Frederick are
1
Page 113 of 256
astounding.
The issue here is not height - it is butt ugliness of the parking podium ( see the garage facade opposite
the court house square) & most importantly no eyes on the street in the first six stories. A wrap of very
shallow units around the parking in the first six stories with balconies is needed. If it makes the parking
have to be more stories that does not matter- inhabited spaces in the lower stories are critical. The
developer is right - the tower height will not be noticed . The blank uninhabited poorly designed
disgusting parking box at the bottom **will** be - and no eyes on the street will build an unsafe
streetscape. Offer whatever height they want **only** if they wrap the parking base with shallow units
with balconies.
Cheers
Michael
Sent from my Whone
Page 114 of 256
Craig Dumart
From:
Sent:
Tara Zhang
Wednesday, June 2, 2021 6:13 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re:
Meeting on Zoom
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Hi Dayna,
Please see below.
Ta ra
From: MARY PAPPERT
Follow Up
Flagged
Re: Today: 30 Francis St. South - Neighbourhood Information
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 20215:56 PM
To: Tara Zhang <Tara.Zhang@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Today: 30 Francis St. South - Neighbourhood Information Meeting on Zoom
Hello Tara,
I'm very disappointed that this meeting will not include comments from those who attend. I have attended many
"information meetings" over the years and even with person attendance I find them very unsatisfactory. I think
I'll give this Zoom meeting a "pass", but I've written some of my thoughts below for you to pass on to Dayna
Edwards as you suggested.
I believe it is not enough to inform the public. This discussion should include more than building heights,
number of units and the floor space ratio regarding the measurement of the building's total floor area in relation
to the land it sits on.
No one is discussing the Human Element: There will be hundreds of people living in very close quarters,
without green space, trees, sufficient parking for visiting family and friends, narrow streets and increased traffic
from these hundreds of residents. No one considers the fact that builders build these towers, sell off the units
and leave town. They leave hundreds of unit owners who must create a Condo Management Board of owners,
have annual meetings, prepare annual financial reports, finance any maintenance or improvements to the
common areas of the building - and ultimately require owners to pay special fees for exceptionally expensive
repairs. The effects Covid-19 have proved how valuable the human element is to maintaining a good quality of
life.
No one appears to consider that within a few years the Senior Population in our community is predicted to reach
approximately 25%. How can Seniors navigate these buildings when the elevators are out? I know that Condo's
are advertised as ideal housing for young IT employees, but young people are known for producing families! Is
there any consideration for this human element?
No one is discussing City Services: Sewer systems, water pressure, Electrical capacity, Emergency access for
ambulance and fire personnel to navigate the streets and the building itself. Council does not seem to be
Page 115 of 256
concerned that all the streets surrounding the multitude of high rise buildings being build in Kitchener
downtown, are so narrow that emergency access could be virtually impossible.
No one is discussing Basic Construction and Maintenance of these extremely high buildings: Are there enough
qualified electrical, plumbing and elevator service people to service and maintain all the high condominiums
being built in such close proximity in downtown Kitchener. I live in a 19 floor condominium and when the
elevator is out of service, the water or power is turned off for maintenance, or some tenant's careless leaking of
water, it effects hundreds of people - and this is just a 19 floor condo! Seniors are trapped in their units!
Last but not least: The whole complexion of our city Kitchener has drastically changed in the 91 years I have
lived here. I know the city needs sufficient tax base to function, and I understand that we must intensify and
infill to prevent the encroachment on our precious farm land surrounding our communities; but we must
Proceed considering the effects that this intensification will have on our population who have lived here and
paid their taxes for many years, value their homes and do their best to keep our city an excellent place to live.
Their concerns are valid and must be considered.
Many years ago we demolished the Kitchener City Hall which now would be revered a Heritage Building. It
was a beautifully built structure where I walked many, many times and we no longer can enjoy. Lets not replace
it with ugly, towers surrounded by a concrete jungle.
Please pass these comments on to Dayna Edwards,Planning Division City of Kitchener. I look forward to he
reply and comments. I am available to talk to her by telephone if she is available. r
Thank you
Wednesday, June 2, 2021, 2:38:28 p.m. EDT, Tara Zhang <tara.zhang@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Mary,
I believe this meeting is more of an information meeting and you can ask the questions at the end of the session. I will be
in a meeting at 6:45pm but I will check emails if you have questions regarding Zoom. If you have questions about the
development proposal, it would be best to contact Dayna.
Tara
From: MARY PAPPERT <mr---- -
Sent: Wednesday, June __ ,.U;, rive
To: Tara Zhang <Tara.Zhang@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Today: 30 Francis St. South - Neighbourhood Information Meeting on Zoom
Page 116 of 256
Hello Tara,
Thank you for your reply and confirmation.
I probably will have difficulty participating in the discussion. I have never participated in Zoom meetings
before, but I have so many concerns with regard to the height and intensification going on in the Kitchener
downtown that I would like to introduce these topics into the discussion.
I may contact you just before the 6:45 pm time you suggested if I have any difficulties.
Thank you,
Mary Pappert
On Wednesday, June 2, 2021, 12:20:11 p.m. EDT, Tara Zhang <tara.zhang@kitchener.ca> wrote:
From: Tara Zhang
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 9:12 AM
To: Tara Zhang <Tara.Zhang@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Today: 30 Francis St. South - Neighbourhood Information Meeting on Zoom
Good Morning,
Thank you for registering to our virtual Neighbourhood Information Meeting today at 7:00 pm Wednesday, June 2nd,
2021.
Please see the link below to access the meeting. It is recommended to join at 6:55pm to avoid any technical difficulties.
Zoom link: https://kitchener-ca.zoom.us/i/85022645682
Should you have any questions or difficulty joining in the virtual meeting, please email me at tara.zhangQkitchener.ca
Best, Tara Zhang
Technical Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7760 1 TTY 1-866-969-99941 tara.zhang(a)kitchener.ca
Page 117 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Matthew Kesselring a>
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:02 AM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposal for 44 Story Tower at Francis and Charles
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Flag Status: Completed
Good morning Dayna,
I am emailing you not to RSVP to the meeting today at 7pm, but rather to voice my concern about why this' meeting
wasn't made easier to attend.
After looking for some more articles or press release about the public meeting, the only place I found out about it was
on Reddit when someone posted an article published TODAY from The Record.
My concerns are:
1. This announcement is behind a paywall making it near impossible for anyone without a paid subscription to The
.Record to know about.
2. The press release is on the same day that the meeting is being held and you must reserve your spot by Noon.
To me, this whole thing feels like a way to prevent anyone from voicing their concerns about the development. It feels
sneaky and I am very disappointed with the lack of transparency about these sort of things.
There is an obvious issue with affordable housing and the city keeps prioritizing their economic growth agenda over the
livability of its people.
I have lived in KW my whole life, and It's sad to see the region make slimy moves and show a complete lack of care for
anything but economic growth.
Burying public meetings in this manner is very suspect and it's very disappointing to know such tactics are being used in
a place like Canada.
I fail to see how building massive high-rises that will cost way more than they're worth will in any way benefit the
community. We need affordable housing, not cheaply made condos that investors will eat up and pass the cost onto
people who struggle to afford anything but cost of shelter.
I'd appreciate you putting me in contact with someone so I can voice these concerns.
Matthew Kesselring
Page 118 of 256
Craig Dumart
In mwnnlw�
From: Michael Brisson _
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 2:16 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 30 Francis
Hi Dayna,
Great - perhaps something like "5 times the FSR increases the need for an active base by a factor of 5 "? - math is so
handy sometimes;) !
Have a good weekend.
Michael
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 3, 2021, at 2:05 PM, Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thanks.
The zoning is Warehouse District --D-6 (and hasn't been updated since the OP was approved in 2014).
The OP designation is Innovation District (the term innovation district is replacing the old term of
'warehouse district'). The lack of update on the zoning also explains the mis-match between the
permitted maximum FSR of 3.0 in the OP and 2.0 in the zoning.
Good question. I will be asking the applicant to respond to these exact policies in my comments on the
application. I am hoping this will assist me with negotiating a more active ground floor and building
base.
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayn a. edwa rdsP kitchen er.ca
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<irnage006.png>
Page 119 of 256
<image007.png>
<image008.png>
From: Michael Brisson
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 11:12 AM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis
Hi Dayna,
Thanks for last night - a lot of innovative work by you guys during Covid to hold a Zoom public meeting -
it worked well 1
I need to improve my understanding of the background - the zoning is Warehouse District - is that now
Innovation District under a new OP ?
How do the goals set out in the attached part of a section of the OP apply to this project ?
Thanks
Michael
<image009.png>
Sent from my iPhone
2 Page 120 of 256
Craig Dumart
From:
Dayna Edwards
Sent:
Wednesday, June 9, 2021 12:05 PM
To:
Neal Moogk-Soulis
Cc:
Debbie Chapman
Subject:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Comments re 30 Francis St. South
Hi Neal,
You raised some great points. While I don't know at this time what the deepest parking structure is in the downtown, I
will be reviewing these building elevations with the geotechnical report to see if space exists to move additional parking
below grade. I would agree with your point, that more parking below grade, the more opportunity exists to secure an
active streetscape.
In addition, I appreciate you taking.the time to attend the virtual public meeting and to share your experience with me.
Your feedback is thoughtful and provides me with many items to consider moving forward.
I will be reviewing your comments and feedback, in conjunction with others received, and studies provided in support of
this development, when providing a planning position to Council. Your comments (without your name or address or
anything that identifies you personally) will be included in the City's record and will be provided to Planning Committee
and Council with staff's recommendation on this development.
I hope you are able to join us in future engagement events related to this project in the coming months,
Sincerely,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 davna.edwards kitchener.ca
From: Neal Moogk-Soulis
Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 at 3:44 PM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments re 30 Francis St. South
Dear Ms. Edwards,
I am sending you this email as a follow-up to the public meeting which was held last week with respect to
the proposed 30 Francis St. S project.
My family owns a house walking distance of the Charles and Francis intersection. This
property has been in our family since 1913 and previous generations of our family lived at the corner of
Joseph and Francis Streets. Through multiple generations we have watched Kitchener continue to grow
and evolve. In fact, the 1913 house was built on a field that our family used to pasture their animals on
before it was subdivided into housing lots!
Page 121 of 256
I have some specific questions about the 30 Francis St S project that also apply more generally to
Kitchener's urban design guidelines.
1. The number of aboveground parking levels
What is the deepest parking structure in the downtown core? I know that Waterloo Region in general has
a high water table and from reading the geotechnical report for this project, the groundwater at this
location is approximately 7m below grade. I can think of several examples, where deeper parking
structures have been built where a higher water table was present including the Bauer Lofts and
Barrelyards in Waterloo, Kitchener City Hall and likely the parking garage at the Kitchener Public Library.
How feasible is it to require the majority of parking structures to be underground? A parking podium, no
matter how well it is disguised, it still a relatively blank wall in the urban fabric. Lowering the parking
structure would also allow some of the upper floors to be tucked into the podium and potentially lowering
the height of the tower overall.
2. Downtown development and the Places & Spaces report
As was mentioned several times at public meeting, Victoria Park is a very lively space that borders at
times on the overcrowding of certain amenities. While this is a sign of a popular park, it runs the risk of
becoming overrun at peak times to the detriment of the space. When comparing a comparable urban
green space with nearby increasing residential density, Waterloo Park is 111 acres while Victoria Park is
just under 60 acres. I am concerned that continuing to approve density increases in the downtown core
without the updated Places & Spaces report nor concrete plans that are financially supported by
development charges or some other tool will leave downtown Kitchener with less green and open space
than is ideal. Furthermore, by allowing construction with zero setbacks, it removes any possibility of
building occupants to enjoy their immediate neighbourhood, whether for an informal gathering, or simply
a place to sit without the need to walk further afield. While the upper floor amenity space allows for some
outdoor time, it still segregates these occupants from the rest of the neighbourhood. Adding zero setbacks
transforms the streetfront into simply a place to pass through from point A to B, rather than a place to
linger, visit and create community.
3. "Past activity predicts future activity"
I am concerned that at one point in the meeting, one of the proponents' representatives suggested that
since other projects had been allowed to proceed with similar adjustments that their project should be
allowed to proceed as well. I believe that this is a wrong approach to take, particularly if Kitchener has
found a better way to do things since those other projects were approved.
4. Zero setbacks limit municipal flexibility in the future
One need only look at the Lang Tannery building across the street to see what challenges are left for the
urban fabric by having a building that abuts the municipal street. I understand from my grandmother,
whose family lived on Francis St immediately across from what was then a newly built building, that the
building left no room for any kind of pedestrian access along its frontage. I also wonder whether allowing
zero setbacks will limit the ability to expand our City streetscape (for instance wider sidewalks, multi -use
bicycle trails etc): For instance, what is the current capacity rating for the sidewalk that fronts this lot?
Should similar buildings be built in the immediate neighbourhood (ie within this block, or touching the
Francis & Charles intersection), will the sidewalk be able to handle the number of anticipated pedestrians?
If not, how can it be expanded if there are zero setbacks?
5. Zero setbacks limit the ability, for a green streetscape
Many studies point to the benefit of trees to provide a shaded and healthy streetscape. There are also
many examples of urban streetscapes that combine density and trees. I am concerned that with zero
setbacks that there will not be enough space to provide trees to provide a pleasant and healthy pedestrian
experience. While the proponents' concept sketches showed smaller trees more or less tucked under the
overhang of the building, they will not provide meaningful shade, nor will they likely be allowed the space
to mature to a useful size.
I will follow this project with interest. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Page 122 of 256
Craig ®umart
From:
Sent: Pamela ORourke
To: Sunday, June 13, 2021 8:29 PM
Subject:
Dayna Edwards
[EXTERNAL] Re: thank you & post engagement survey
Thank you Dayna,
That was a well run meeting.
I have shared the main points with many people who were talking about this high risero'Ject.
Thank you for reaching out to me immediately when I could not access your meeting site.
That was also important to me
Thank you
parr orourke
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:54 PM Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards(c�kitchener ca> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to you for taking the time to attend and share feedb
neighbourhood meeting for the proposed development at 30 Francis Street South. It i acli at last night's
the planning process that we are able to work together to achieve high quality new developm h public input early in
lopment here in Kitchener.r.
As mentioned last night, I am attaching a link to a post -meeting survey forour
us improve Upon our community sessions. Planning_ Public Engagement SurveyEngage
Y consideration. Filling this out will help
WR
This is not the last opportunity to provide feedback, and we will be in touch in the coming mon
future opportunities for engagement. g the with respect to
In the meantime, a copy of the presentation, the recording of the session and an add "
provided in the coming days at www.kitchener.ca/plannin applications y itional information will be
Any additional feedback or comments can be provided to myself via this email,
Let me know if you have any questions,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards(@kitchener ca
Q10
Page 123 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Dayna Edwards
Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 10:52 AM,
To: Sam Nabi
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis - feedback
Hi Sam,
I appreciate you taking the time to attend the virtual public meeting and to share your experience with me. Your
feedback is thoughtful and provides me with many items to consider moving forward.
I will be reviewing your comments and feedback, in conjunction with others received, and studies provided in support of
this development, when providing a planning position to Council. Your comments (without your name or address or
anything that identifies you personally) will be included in the. City's record and will be provided to Planning Committee
and Council with staff's recommendation on this development. I hope you are able to join us in future engagement
events related to this project in the coming months,
Sincerely,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) 1 Planning Division 1 City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca
From: Sam Nabi
Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 at 3:30 PM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis - feedback
Hello Dayna,
Thank you for answering the public's questions in last week's meeting, and I'm very happy that the discussion didn't get
stuck on shadows and wind a
Although I already presented some thoughts verbally, I would like to submit this email to you as my written feedback.
I have no issue with intensification, and we need more of it within growth centres to avoid expanding the countryside
line and create vibrant urban communities. This is a project that has the potential to contribute to the downtown
neighbourhood, but it also risks being a tool for financial speculation without regard to the street life of downtown
Kitchener or the diverse needs of residents.
The proposed building is a mix of 1 -bedroom (-75%) and 2-bedr6om ("25%) units. There are a total of 532 units, which is
a lot of households! I can understand a smaller project getting away with only one or two types of units, but for a
building this big, it's worth thinking about it as a small neighbourhood — as a complete community in an of itself.
Page 124 of 256
For comparison purposes, this yellow highlighted area in Doon has a similar number of dwellings. There are singles,
semis, towns, commercial uses, and green space. It has a way to go before it can be called a complete community, but I
show it as an illustration of how 500+ people can be housed in this city.
Doon represents one extreme, and the first draft of this 30 Francis proposal represents the other extreme: micro -
apartments geared to single people and couples, with no commercial uses or public -facing services. The rooftop terrace
is nice, but It's essentially a gated community. I'd like to see the ground floor amenity areas be built out to
accommodate future commercial tenants; even if the economy is not poised to handle those tenants right now, it would
be a loss for this corner to become dead frontage forever.
The topic of affordability is my biggest concern. In the applicant's planning justification report, they were asked to
respond to the Planning Act, PPS, Places to Grow, Regional OP, and City of Kitchener OP, all of which highlight the need
to affordable housing.
In each instance, the PJR did not mention affordability at all and instead tried to justify that it was contributing to a "full
range of housing" by virtue of providing 1- and 2 -bedroom apartment units. This PJR should earn a failing grade.
I look forward to many more details about how the developer proposes to include affordable housing in the project.
- I would like to see affordable units provided within the building, rather than cash in lieu;
- I would like to see units purchased by non-profit or charitable organizations, with agreements registered on title with
the Region to guarantee affordability for whoever lives there (simply selling a unit at below-market rate one time may.
meet some definitions of affordability, but that's a very low bar);
- I would like to see affordable housing guaranteed in perpetuity, rather than a time -bound requirement like 10 or 20
years.
Page 125 of 256
As more tall buildings get built in downtown, I encourage you and the Planning department in general to be firm with
these Section 37 agreements. Sooner or later, the provision of affordable housing will become a requirement, not a
negotiation. But until then you have a lot of power to make sure our increased density will benefit the population as a
whole.
Best regards,
Sam Nabi
37
On Jun 3, 2021, at 13:53, Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to you for taking the time to attend and share feedback at
last night's neighbourhood meeting for the proposed development at 30 Francis Street South. It is
through public input early on in the planning process that we are able to work together to achieve high
quality new development here in Kitchener.
As mentioned last night, I am attaching a link to a post -meeting survey for your consideration. Filling this
out will help us improve upon our community sessions. Planning - Public Engagement Survey I
EngageWR
This is not the last opportunity to provide feedback, and we will be in touch in the coming months with
respect to future opportunities for engagement.
In the meantime, a copy of the presentation, the recording of the session and any additional information
will be provided in the coming days at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Any additional feedback or comments can be provided to myself via this email,
Let me know if you have any questions,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca
<image001.png> <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png>
<imacge005.png> <imageOO6.png> <image007.png> <image003.png>
Page 126 of 256
Craig Dumart
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Sharon,
Dayna Edwards
Monday, June 7, 2021 10:08 AM
Sharon Lamont
Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: thank you & post engagement survey (30 Francis St South)
I appreciate you taking the time to attend the virtual public meeting and to share your experience with me. I will be
reviewing your comments and feedback, in conjunction with others received, and studies provided in support of this
development, when providing a planning position to Council. Your comments (without your name or address or anything
that identifies you personally) will be included in the City's record and will be provided to Planning Committee and
Council with staff's recommendation on this development.
I will indeed ensure you are added to the mailing list,
Many thanks,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca
From: Sharon Lamont
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:50 PM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Sharon Lamont
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: thank you & post engagement survey (30 Francis St South)
Hi, Dayna
Thanks for providing yesterday's sessional really liked that I could participate virtually. I would have also enjoyed a more
usual in-person event where I could study the information more easily and ask questions but certainly understand why
that is not possible these days.
I was surprised to discover the building would be condos. For some reason, I had assumed rental units. The whole
concept of 'affordable housing' was not well explained in my opinion. I get that the govt defines the criteria but
someone should be able to explain to us how that would be manifest in this specific project. The concern someone
raised about investors buying many units and then controlling rents seemed to me to be an issue of real concern.
I'm 64 yrs old so very much of a 'self -owned vehicle' generation. I hope that the world is able to be less dependent upon
cars; however in a country where snow is on the ground for about half the year, the idea that we have parking spots for
less than half the units seems problematic. I assume that ride share programs would be encouraged by having ready
access. Hopefully forced public transit strategies work over time.
I also support the idea of some larger units. We have loved living in the Victoria Park area for 30+ years and would
happily downsize to a one floor residence. The idea of so much smaller seemed problematic.
Page 127 of 256
I would appreciate being on a mailing list for any community participation in this project as we live one block away.
Thanks, Dayna.
Sharon
M
From: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 20211:54 PM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Subject: thank you & post engagement survey
Good Afternoon,
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to you for taking the time to attend and share feedback at last night's
neighbourhood meeting for the proposed development at 30 Francis Street South. It is through public input early on in
the planning process that we are able to work together to achieve high quality new development here in Kitchener.
As mentioned last night, I am attaching a link to a post -meeting survey for your consideration. Filling this out will help us
improve upon our community sessions. Planning - Public Engagement Survey I EngageWR
This is not the last opportunity to provide feedback, and we will be in touch in the coming months with respect to future
opportunities for engagement.
In the meantime, a copy of the presentation, the recording of the session and any additional information will be
provided in the coming days at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications
Any additional feedback or comments can be provided to myself via this email,
Let me know if you have any questions,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwardsPkitchener.ca
Page 128 of 256
Craig Dumart
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good Morning Tara,
Dayna. Edwards
Wednesday, June 9, 2021 10:41 AM
Tara Olheiser
Graham Moore
Re: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis Street South
I appreciate you taking the time to attend the virtual public meeting and to share your experience with me. I will be
reviewing your comments and feedback, in conjunction with others received, and studies provided in support of this
development, when providing a planning position to Council. Your comments (without your name or address or anything
that identifies you personally) will be included in the City's record and will be provided to Planning Committee and
Council with staff's recommendation on this development. I hope you are able to join us in future engagement events
related to this project in the coming months,
Sincerely,
Dayna Edwards
Senior Planner (Urban Design) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
51.9-741-2200 ext. 7324 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dayna.edwards@kitchener.ca
x n A
From: Tara Olheiser om>
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 9:43 AM
To: Dayna Edwards <Dayna.Edwards@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Graham Moore <Graham.Moore@toyota.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 30 Francis Street South
Hi Dayna,
My apologies in the delay for this response to your letter sent out regarding the 30 Francis Street South proposal.
I tried to locate the June 2nd meeting minutes but wasn't able to find them. What was the outcome? The
kitchener.ca/planningapplications site still has the status as 'notice of development sent and feedback requested'
As I'm sure you have heard from other community members, my biggest concern is around the 44 storeys. I think the
One Victoria building and the City Centre building are around the 20 storey mark, and staying around that height seems
reasonable. I'm not sure what the highrises are in waterloo, but 44 storeys seems like it would be the tallest in the
region and set precedence for future high-rise development. Does having a downtown core similar to ones in the GTA
align with Kitchener's vision?
Thanks,
Ta ra
Page 129 of 256
Craig Dumart
From: Tara Rush
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 12:30 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Amendment Application OPA21/001/F/DE // Application ZBA21/002.F/DE -
feedback
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ms. Edwards,
I received your letter in the mail yesterday regarding the application for development at 30 Francis St, and I am taking
the opportunity to provide comments about this proposal.
I am adamantly against this proposal as the building as such (44 storeys) is completely out of sync with the surrounding
neighbourhood. 1 Victoria St is the closest tall building, and it stands at 19 storeys. The proposal for 44 storeys would
completely change the landscape of the surrounding area. It would block the view from my terrace of the horizon. It
would block sunlight. I do not support this at all.
In addition, the traffic from 532 additional units within the downtown area is not sustainable! There is already too much
traffic in the downtown core (King / Water / Francis / Duke / Victoria ) all being one -lane roads.
I would strongly urge you to reconsider something more appropriate sized -wise within the structure of KW. We are not
downtown Toronto, nor Manhattan, nor do I wish to aspire to live there. Should this building go ahead, I will certainly
consider a move to uptown Waterloo whereby the heights of the buildings are reasonable, and one can expect to see
the horizon and have sunlight.
Sincerely.
Tara Rush
Page 130 of 256
IN8 Developments
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
February 2, 2022
Dear Craig
As a component of the community benefits package being offered by IN8 Developments, in connection
with its project at 30 Francis St, IN8 will be donating $300k to St. Peter's Lutheran Church.
This money will be used to help fund the development and construction of 40 affordable housing units
at Queen St N in Kitchener.
Sincerely,
( C7 1 /t ---
Darryl Firsten
President
W8Developments
44 Peter Street,
St. Clements, ON NOB 2M0
Phone: 519-954-8868
Fax: 519-954-9208
Page 131 of 256
0
rn
N
IL
W, w
H
Hinos
US SIONVN=l
fill
F-
U)
LU
N
LU
LU
TA
I
W
Lu
Hinos
US SIONVN=l
F-
U)
LU
N
LU
LU
TA
W
Lu
\
115"
LU
Z
Jm
U)
-j
m
J,
j;
S
0LU
C4
z
IL
Lu
Z
cn
A
IL
z
LU
Lu C4
p3 is momw 0
Z (L
MM'WW
cn
Z
g o6 CL
M
Cli
IL
cn
MH
—N N
Ci
Lu
Lu
Z
X
cn
a.
<: � , _ / a ,; „ ! W 00
\\w \°3:c\
. v a 2 / ^ ^ _ `
� ?�, ./.J / � \ � ° ` --
/ v: w/`!: / ° \ \ .
C4
a:. /:\ / y�~
e,\\�\/\:« _ - ,
LU
=:\\\x �w
-M
LU
amW3
W�2,
`\}\/\/9,,
H -
C4
LU
> IL
LU
cn
ON
9 4M
.................
------
...........
F� .............
kill
............
....... . ..
4rz
........... .........
11
....... . . ........... .
JI
<
. ...... .....
w
LU
5H
LU
C4
a'T Ad a 3d -
N3
L cnIL
JQ
o
a.
-n7
", . . ...................
.
..........
o
�1,
..... ..............
—1!
..........................
........
P
................ 19,
%
r-77-1
..
.... . .
. . . . . . .
..............
"I ............
n..........
7 ............
. ................
I
..................
I
... ........II
0
z
UOI
on
of
LLI
IL
Z- -Z
\\\\/\/}\/\/(�
SO
LLI
LLI, El N El D D El El El
0
Z
15
ML
2 mo HIM Ho
11 N El [11 F-1 El El El
STMET M-1
jk
It
ji
ji j
i j
„`
.......... I
StaliBeport
l
IKgc.;i' r� R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: March 7, 2022
SUBMITTED BY: Bustamante, Rosa - Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319
PREPARED BY: Bateman, Brian — Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7869
WARD INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: February 2, 2022
REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-089
SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment OPA21/005/K/BB
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/008/K/BB
890-900 King Street West
Cantiro King General Partner Ltd.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA21/005/K/BB for Cantiro King General
Partner Ltd. requesting Special Policy Area 20 to permit a mixed-use development with
a Floor Space Ratio of 10.1 on the parcel of land specified and illustrated on Schedule
`A', be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report
DSD -2022-089 as Appendix "A", and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo
for approval; and
B. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/008/K/BB for Cantiro King General
Partner Ltd. be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" and "Map No.
1", and further
C. That in accordance with Planning Act Regulation 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that applications for
minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to this Zoning By-law Amendment
ZBA21/008/K/BB.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding an
Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application for subject lands located
at 890-900 King Street West. It is Planning staff's recommendation that the applications be
approved.
Community engagement included:
o circulation of a preliminary notice letter to owners of property within 120m of the
subject site;
o installation of billboard notice sign on the property;
o a developer -led Neighbourhood Meeting (July 28, 2021)
o a City -led Neighbourhood Meeting (October 6, 2021);
o discussions with interested members of the public;
Page 151 of 256
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 Information Meeting; and,
o notice of the public meeting was given in The Record on February 11, 2022.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Cantiro King General Partner Ltd. is seeking Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to build
a proposed purpose-built rental development comprised of a 25 storey mixed use building with 231
residential units with retail/commercial proposed at grade and residential units above. The
development proposes structured parking below grade (two levels) and above grade in the second
level of the podium. A total of 108 parking spaces are proposed. The owner is seeking a partnership
with the Grand River Hospital Foundation (GRHF) to provide several units for exclusive use of
patient's families while seeking care at the hospital.
REPORT:
Al
CI)
�Wv
CO
�<")a..
.& PIN
Figure 1 - Location Map: 890-900 King St. W.
The subject lands are located at the corner of Pine Street and King Street West, directly across the
street from Grand River Hospital (see Figure 1). The subject lands are comprised of two separate
properties (890 King Street West and 900 King Street West) which are proposed to be consolidated
for the purpose of redevelopment. 890 King Street West was recently used as a private surface
parking lot and prior to that, was formerly used as a gas station until 1993. 900 King Street West
was a three storey walk up office building previously used as a medical office. This building has
Page 152 of 256
since been demolished. The subject lands are contaminated and are being remediated through the
Region of Waterloo's Brownfield Incentive program. The remediation work has commenced.
The surrounding area includes a mix of land uses including commercial, mixed use, residential and
institutional. Surrounding land uses include a medical commercial building to the north, commercial
buildings to the west, Pine Street to the east and Grand River Hospital located on the opposite site
of King Street. Immediately adjacent to the subject lands, located within the King Street right-of-way,
is the Grand River Hospital LRT ION transit stop.
Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
The purpose of this amendment is to add a Special Policy to the K -W Hospital Secondary Plan in the
1994 Official Plan and to amend Map 18 — K -W Hospital Secondary Plan to increase the maximum
permitted density on the lands, municipally known as 890-900 King Street West, to facilitate the
redevelopment for a 25 storey, mix use building with ground floor commercial, 231 residential units and
108 parking spaces.
To implement the proposed development, an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) is required. The OPA
is requesting that the subject lands have a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 10.1 whereas policy
13.7.3.5 of the K -W Hospital Neighbourhood Secondary Plan limits density to a Floor Space Ratio
(FSR) of 4.0.
In addition to the OPA, a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) is required. The subject lands are zoned
High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) as per Schedule 75 of Zoning By-law 85-1.
To permit the proposed development the applicant is requesting to maintain the High Intensity Mixed
Use Corridor Zone (MU -3), but add site-specific provisions to implement the proposed development.
These include seeking permission to:
• amend Section 55.2.2.2 a) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a rear yard setback from the west
property line of 0.70m, whereas 14.Om is required.
• amend Section 55.2.2.2 a) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a side yard setback from
Dodds Lane of 0.60m, whereas 1.50 m is required.
• amend Section 55.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio
of 10.1 for the proposed building, whereas a maximum of 4.0 is permitted.
• amend Section 55.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to implement a maximum building height of
81.0 metres and 25 storeys, whereas the current by-law does not contain a maximum height
restriction.
• amend Section 6.2.1 a) to permit parking at a rate of 0.71 per unit for Dwelling Units, greater
than 51.0 sq.m. in size.
• amend Section 6.2.1 a) to permit parking at a rate of 0.165 per unit for Dwelling Units less
than 51 sq.m. in size.
• amend Section 6.2.1 b) vi) B) to permit Visitor Parking at a rate of 10% of required
parking. Visitor parking is to be shared with commercial uses.
• amend Section 6.2.1 a) to allow non-residential uses without a minimum parking
requirement; and
• allow for canopies and stairs within 0.0 metres from the King Street property line.
Page 153 of 256
Development Concept
Figure 2 — Concept Plan of King Street Elevations
The conceptual plan is illustrated in Figure 2 above. It consists of a base/podium, tower and top.
The podium is 3 storeys in height and covers most of the site. The first floor is proposed to consist
of retail/commercial uses at grade along the frontage of King Street West and Pine Street. Several
entry points to commercial units are along King Street, at the corner of King Street West and Pine
Street, and along a portion of the Pine Street frontage. The main floor has a 4.5m interior ceiling
height with large windows along most of the frontage of King and Pine Streets. Elements such as
rolling garage doors are being considered along the frontage to allow the businesses to spill out onto
the outdoor patio/landscaped area along the King Street West frontage. The main entryways to the
commercial and residential component of the development will be clearly defined with signage,
alternative exterior finishes and canopy structures over each pedestrian entrance.
The main access to the residential component of the development is off King Street. The lobby area
includes access to elevators, a parcel room, mail room, common amenity area and an office area.
Also on the main level are garbage and recycling areas (with collection off of Dodds Lane). The
garbage/recycling pick up area will double as a loading area for residents moving in and out of the
building and to service the commercial/retail units. Service areas and the building transformer are
located at the back of the building and screened from view from King and Pine Streets. Storage
lockers, bike maintenance, a dog washing station and mechanical room are also provided on the
main level of the podium.
Page 154 of 256
The primary vehicular access leading to the underground parking garage is from King Street. Bicycle
parking is provided in a secure room for residents on the main level as well as in the second level of
the podium. Bicycle parking for public use will be included on the site plan during the detailed Site
Plan process.
The second storey of the podium is for parking. Vehicular access to the second storey parking is
from Dodds Lane. There are 34 parking spaces along with a bike room that are accessed by
residents either through an internal staircase or elevators. Large windows are extended up to the
top of the second floor and provide views out of the building. Parking planned on the second -floor
podium will be screened so it is not seen from the street.
The third storey of the podium level is for several hospital foundation units as well as office and
amenity/lounge space. The hospital foundation units would house family members of those seeking
overnight or extended care at the hospital.
Floors four through twenty-four make up the compact point tower portion which is stepped backed
from the podium and offset to be closer to the corner of Pine and King Streets. The tower contains
231 residential units. A mix of unit sizes are proposed including studios, one -bedroom and two-
bedroom units. Each unit is proposed to have a private balcony. All units are proposed to be rental
tenure.
The twenty fifth storey is the top of the tower. The floorplate of the twenty fifth storey is stepped back,
and it provides a common amenity space for all residents of the building. The common amenity
space consists of a fitness room and lounge/caf6/kitchen. A covered outdoor terrace is planned to
overlook King and Pine streets and provides views overlooking the hospital and residential areas to
the west of the site and to the south towards downtown Kitchener. The proposed development
prioritizes shared communal space (indoor and outdoor) which will provide residents with an
opportunity to socialize.
Planning Analysis:
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020:
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest
related to land use planning and development. The PPS sets out policies to consider in building
strong healthy communities. The PPS is supportive of efficient development and land use patterns
which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term and
communities that accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses, while promoting
compact and efficient development patterns that minimize land consumption and make better use of
infrastructure.
The goal of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is to provide a vision for land use planning in
Ontario that encourages the efficient use of land, resources and public investment in infrastructure.
A mix of land uses are encouraged to provide choice and diversity. A variety of transportation modes
that will facilitate pedestrian movement, require less reliance on the automobile, and increase use
of public transit is encouraged as a means of creating more sustainable, livable and healthy
communities. The PPS encourages development that will provide for long-term prosperity,
environmental health and social well-being.
The PPS provides that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their
vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based
on densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land and resources.
Page 155 of 256
The PPS requires municipalities to promote healthy, livable, and safe communities by
accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, park and other uses to meet the long
term needs of the community and to encourage compact, mixed-use development that incorporates
compatible employment uses to support liveable communities.
Provincial land use policies establish a framework that supports transit supportive development
within Urban Areas of the Region. Sections 1.1.3.2 and 1.4.3 of the PPS require land use patterns
within settlement areas to be based on densities and a mix of land uses that make efficient use of
land and resources, which are transit -supportive and support active transportation, and provide for
an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and
affordable housing needs of current and future residents. Moreover, 1.4.3e) directs municipalities
to require transit -supportive development and prioritizing intensification in proximity to transit,
including corridors and stations.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed applications are consistent with the PPS as they
will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject property with a compact mixed-use development that
is located within the Midtown Major Transit Station Area (MTSA), an identified intensification area in
the Official Plan (OP). The property is adjacent to the Grand River Hospital LRT station. No new
public roads will be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff has confirmed
there is capacity in existing infrastructure to support the proposed development. This proposal better
utilizes the subject lands as it will bring in a range of uses, including a new purpose-built rental
housing option, in a form that is transit supportive and included active uses at grade, secured bicycle
parking, and reduced parking rates.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), 2020
The Growth Plan identified and delineated built up areas as key focus areas for intensification to
make efficient use of land and infrastructure to support transit viability and provide flexibility to
capitalize on new economic and employment opportunities while ensuring the provision of a full
range of housing options to accommodate a range of incomes and household sizes all as part of a
complete community.
Growth within settlement areas is focused on locations with existing or planned transit, with a priority
on higher order transit where it exists or is planned. Complete communities feature a diverse mix of
land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores,
services, and public service facilities. They also have convenient access to a range of transportation
options, including options for the safe, comfortable, and convenient use of active transportation.
Within complete communities, developments must be of a high quality compact built form with an
attractive and vibrant public realm which includes public open spaces.
Furthermore, Section 2.2.4 of the PPS requires MTSAs to be planned for a minimum density of 160
residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail transit. The ION light
rail transit system is a Priority Transit Corridor. The subject lands are within several metres the
Grand River Hospital ION station.
Within all MTSAs, development will be supported, where appropriate, by planning for a diverse mix
of uses, including second units and affordable housing, to support existing and planned transit
service levels; by providing alternative development standards, such as reduced parking standards;
and by prohibiting land uses and built form that would adversely affect the achievement of transit -
supportive densities. Lands adjacent to or near existing and planned frequent transit should be
planned to be transit -supportive and supportive of active transportation and should be comprised of
a range of uses and activities.
Page 156 of 256
It is the opinion of staff that the proposed applications are in conformity with the Growth Plan. The
development of the subject lands with a high density mixed-use building - including partnering with
Grand River Hospital to provide a suite of rooms for families of loved ones needing care from out of
town - will contribute to the number of jobs and housing options within the MTSA and near the City's
Urban Growth Centre, Uptown Waterloo, and Grand River Hospital. An underutilized surface parking
lot will be redeveloped with an intensive mix of land uses, including a new housing option. The
redevelopment of these lands will make better use of existing and new infrastructure such as the
ION light rail transit, and is appropriate for a MTSA. The proposed development is located within an
area planned for intensification. The Growth Plan prioritizes intensification within strategic growth
areas which include both Major Transit Station Areas and brownfield sites, both of which applies to
the subject lands. The proposed development meets the criteria of the Places to Grow Policy by
planning a development for intensification within a Major Transit Station Area that is of an appropriate
scale to support the transit infrastructure and utilizes existing services.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
The Regional Official Plan (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 Urban Growth Centers (UGC) and MTSAs.
The subject lands are within a MTSA and in the Midtown PARTS plan area of the City of Kitchener.
Increased densities in the form of a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial
development is encouraged within the MTSAs. The Region is supportive of the increase in density
on site and the mixed-use nature of the proposal.
This area contains the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support major growth,
including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply systems and municipal
wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. It is also well -served
by the existing public transportation system including bus and light rail rapid transit, including a transit
station stop immediately in front of the property on King Street. For these reasons, lands within the
Urban Area have the greatest capacity to accommodate growth and serve as the primary focus for
employment, housing, cultural and recreational opportunities in the region.
Within the Urban Area, most of the Region's future growth will be directed to Urban Growth Centres,
MTSAs, Reurbanization Corridors, Major Local Nodes and Urban Designated Greenfield Areas. In
general, these areas will be planned to create a more compact urban form with a greater mix of
employment, housing, and services in close proximity to each other. The proposed mix of residential,
office, and commercial uses are proposed at a density that will support transit and make more
efficient use of the subject lands than an underutilized parking lot and former office building would.
MTSAs are planned to be developed to achieve increased densities that support and ensure the
viability of existing and planned rapid transit service levels and a mix of residential, office, institutional
and commercial development, wherever appropriate. Regional Planning staff has no objections to
the proposed applications.
The Region is currently undergoing a review of its Official Plan including the delineation of MTSA
boundaries, which have been endorsed by Regional Council. The subject lands are within the draft
MTSA boundaries that will be outlined in the ROP.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform with the ROP as this site is appropriate
for the increases in density being sought due to its proximity to the Grand River Hospital Transit ION
station.
Page 157 of 256
City Policy Considerations:
City Official Plan (OP)
The subject Iands,890-900 King Street West, are located at the north easterly corner of King Street
West and Pine Street. The subject lands are located within the designated Built -Up Area and are
also located within a Major Transit Station Area. The lands are designated Mixed Use Corridor in
the K -W Hospital Secondary Plan, which forms part of the 1994 Official Plan. The Mixed -Use
Corridor designation in the K -W Hospital Secondary Plan encourages higher density, mixed use
development and redevelopment.
Maior Transit Station Area (MTSA) Official Plan
The OP establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener. Policies direct growth and
development within this intensification area. Intensification areas are targeted as the primary
locations to accommodate most of the development or redevelopment within the City. According to
Section 3.C.2.3 of the OP, Primary Intensification Areas include MTSAs. These intensification areas
have been identified as the areas targeted to provide a range and mix of uses at higher densities
than adjacent areas.
The subject lands are located within a MTSA which include lands that are generally within a ten-
minute walking radius around the location of an ION station.
Section 3.C.2.17 of the OP indicates that the planned function of MTSAs is to support transit and
rapid transit. This is a key principle when focusing on where to accommodate growth through
development, as growth is intended to support existing and planned transit including rapid transit
service levels. The MTSA is integral in providing connectivity of various modes of transportation to
the transit system; achieving a mix of residential, office and commercial development, and achieving
streetscapes with a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit -oriented.
In the opinion of staff, the proposed mixed-use development supports the planned function of a
MTSA. The proposed uses will result in intensification of a currently underutilized parcel of land near
a range of transit options, including ION. Supporting transit usage is a key objective for lands within
the MTSA, and as such the proposed development has been designed at a density to support higher
order transit. The site will contain several Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures
which encourage other modes of transportation, besides the automobile, with a focus on active
transportation including walking and cycling. As a predominant location between Uptown Waterloo
and Downtown Kitchener and along the ION transit route, the site is also located within a Mixed Use
Corridor which has also been identified for intensification to direct development away from
surrounding low rise residential neighbourhoods and into the station areas.
In accordance with Section 3.C.2.19 of the OP, the Midtown PARTS Plan has been adopted by
Council, but has not been implemented through an OPA. However, the City is currently in the
process of conducting its Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) which is intended to implement
the recommendations of the PARTS Plan. It is important to note that the NPR project has
commenced but has not been finalized as this is closely tied to the ROP Review and the final
delineation of the MTSAs in the ROP. Therefore, this study is on hold until the ROP review is
completed.
Until such time as Station Area Plans are completed, any development application submitted within
a MTSA will be reviewed generally in accordance with the Station Study Areas contained in the City's
PARTS Project Plan and Background Report. Section 3.C.2.22 of the OP establishes criteria for
development within a MTSA. The proposed high-density mixed-use development supports the
planned function of the MTSA by employing several TDM measures, is within proximity to existing
public transit facilities, provides on-site amenities together with intensive residential, office and
Page 158 of 256
commercial uses that will activate the streetscapes and that are both pedestrian and transit friendly.
The proposed development is at a scale and intensity that is appropriate for lands located within a
MTSA.
Urban Structure
The planned function of a MTSA, in order to support transit and rapid transit, is to:
a) provide a focus for accommodating growth through development to support existing and
planned transit and rapid transit service levels;
b) provide connectivity of various modes of transportation to the transit system;
c) achieve a mix of residential, office (including major office), institutional (including major
institutional) and commercial development (including retail commercial centres),
wherever appropriate; and,
d) have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit -oriented.
In addition, MTSAs on priority transit station corridors shall be planned with a minimum density target
of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those served by light rail transit. Planning staff
are recommending approval of these applications as these types of redevelopment proposals will
help achieve minimum target levels.
Housing
Section 4. 1.1 of the OP, as one of the City's objectives concerning the provision of housing options,
directs staff to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles,
densities, tenure, and affordability to satisfy the varying needs of our community through all stages
of life. The application for the high-density mixed-use development will provide for a variety of
housing options including rentals of studio, one-, and two-bedroom units thereby meeting this policy
direction of the OP.
Section 4.1.4 also directs the location and integration of housing opportunities with local stores and
services that are accessible by active transportation and public transit. The subject lands will
integrate office and retail uses with the proposed residential uses. The site is located within a MTSA
and therefore has access to higher order transit and will also provide for active transportation
through the provision of bicycle storage and pedestrian and cycling linkages to nearby trails and
the neighbourhood at large.
Urban Design
Chapter 11 of the City's OP outlines policies with respect to the direction and criteria used for urban
design. To address these policies, a checklist was submitted in support of the development
proposal.
Policy 11C.1.30 provides direction for the Site Plan Control process for elements that must be
incorporated into the site design. These include a design that provides for a high-quality public realm,
safe site circulation for all modes of transportation, site servicing components are functional but
screened from view from the public realm, landscaping, site signage be integrated into the design,
nighttime visibility, and safety.
Policy 11.C.1.31. directs that new buildings are designed to enhance pedestrian usability, respect,
and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes, and contribute to rich and vibrant urban
places.
Policy 11.C.1.32 states that the City will require special design consideration for buildings located at
priority locations.
Page 159 of 256
Policy 11.C.1.33. encourages attractive building forms, compatible with surrounding buildings, infill
development that contributes to the neighbourhood character, architectural innovation, and a high
standard of building designs for buildings located at priority locations.
In the opinion of staff, the proposed development satisfies the criteria outlined in Section 11 of the
OP. the criterion for evaluation includes Streetscape; Skyline; Safety; Universal Design; Priority
Locations; Site Design; and Building Design, Massing and Scale Design. The proposal includes
upgrades and improvements to adjacent streetscapes to improve the public realm. The proposal
includes a high-rise tower that has been evaluated with respect to the Guidelines for Tall Building
Design (Urban Design Manual) and the 25 storey height of the building will provide visual interest
and variation which is consistent with other high-rise proposals that have either been approved or
are under evaluation with respect to the City's skyline. The floor plate is smaller to mitigate the
effects of shadow. Safety and universal design are principles always considered in good site design.
Given the location of the subject site within the LRT corridor a higher level of urban design is
expected and has been incorporated in the overall site and building design. Wind, Shadow and
Traffic Impact and Tall Buildings analyses have all been undertaken to inform building, site design,
massing, and scale design of the site to promote compatibility and good planning. Final design
considerations will be confirmed through the site plan approval process.
Policy Framework
Policy 16.D.1.4 of the OP directs that certain policies of the OP are applicable in Secondary Plan
areas. Parts A, B, C, E and F of the OP are applicable policies that apply to lands within a
Secondary Plan. Therefore, although the Secondary Plans have not been updated as part of the
OP in the 2014, all Secondary Plans listed in Policy 16.D.1.3 including the K -W Hospital Secondary
Plan, which affects these lands, are still subject to these Sections of the OP which means that the
OP policies also apply to the Secondary Plan areas.
K -W Hospital Secondary Plan
The subject lands are currently designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the K -W Hospital Secondary
Plan, which forms part of the Official Plan.
Secondary Plans that are originally part of the 1994 OP, were not revised as part of the adoption of
the OP in 2014 and are currently under review as part of the Neighbourhood Planning Review
(NPR) with the intention of being revised as part of a separate comprehensive planning process.
Therefore, the Secondary Plan policies of the K -W Hospital Secondary Plan continue to apply to
the subject lands and will be amended through this process.
The Mixed Use Corridor land use designation in the K -W Secondary Plan currently permits a
maximum FSR of 4.0. Lands within this designation are primarily intended to serve the adjacent
residential neighbourhoods and employment areas and allow for intensive transit supportive
development such as the development proposed by the applicant, which will include a mix of office
and commercial and retail uses together with a variety of residential uses and tenure types including
affordable housing, as well as rental and condominium development. The intensification of this and
other sites within the corridor is intended to support higher order transit. The high intensity mixed
use development proposed for the subject lands will implement this policy direction of the K -W
Secondary Plan through its provision of residential use as well as the commercial/retail employment
uses on the lands that are being proposed for higher densities that will support transit.
Mixed Use Corridors generally have strong pedestrian linkages to and from the surrounding
residential neighbourhoods and this development proposes to support those linkages. The subject
lands have the benefit of being in proximity to Uptown Waterloo and Downtown Kitchener meaning
the full range of amenities are available within walking or biking distance. This includes:
• Major employers (Grand River Hospital, Sun Life, etc.);
• Food stores (Central Fresh Market — 700 m; Vincenzo's — 700 m; Valu -Mart, 1.3 km);
Page 160 of 256
• Schools (King Edward Public School, Kitchener Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational School);
• Trails;
• Restaurants;
• Retail; and
• Recreation.
The current policy framework of the City under the K -W Hospital Plan permits mixed development
at floor space ratio of 4.0 whereas the proponent is requesting 10.1. These policies pre -date a
number of policy documents including the current Provincial Policy Statement, the current Growth
Plan, the current Regional Official Plan and the 2014 City of Kitchener Official Plan. When the City's
Official Plan was updated in 2014, the Secondary Plans, including the K -W Hospital Plan, were
deferred in order to complete more detailed PARTS planning and the related Neighbourhood Review
process. These Secondary Plans are in the process of being updated, with final approval pending
the Regional review of its Official Plan which is currently underway.
To implement the proposed mixed-use development, an amendment to the Secondary Plan is
required to increase the Floor Space Ratio from 4.0 to 10.1. This increase is appropriate given the
location within a Major Transit Station, the adjacency to the Grand River Hospital ION stop, the
location along a major Regional Road, and the ability to design the site in a manner which minimizes
impacts on surrounding development. The subject lands do not directly abut low-rise residential
development and are separated from the closest low-rise residential properties by Dodds Lane and
other non-residential uses. It has been demonstrated the increased density across from the ION
stop is supportable and compatible with the objectives of the PARTS Plans. The proposed
development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan
and the Region of Waterloo Official Plan. The proposed development implements broader policy
direction as it relates to implementation, and reflects the City's 2014 Official Plan, which identifies
Major Transit Station Areas as primary intensification areas. The subject lands are also a Brownfield
site. Brownfields are also considered priorities for redevelopment.
The City's intensification areas are intended to provide for a broad range and mix of uses in an area
of higher density and activity than surrounding areas. As noted in Policy 3.C.2.17 of the Official
Plan, the planned function of Major Transit Station Areas, in order to support transit and rapid transit,
is to:
a) provide a focus for accommodating growth through development to support existing and
planned transit and rapid transit service levels;
b) provide connectivity of various modes of transportation to the transit system;
c) achieve a mix of residential, office (including major office), institutional (including major
institutional) and commercial development (including retail commercial centres), wherever
appropriate; and,
d) have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit oriented.
The proposed development will support existing rapid transit service levels by providing development
immediately adjacent to an existing transit stop. The proposed development provides housing
adjacent to a major employer (Grand River Hospital) allowing future residents to walk to work. The
development incorporates bicycle parking and will support active transportation. The development
includes a mix of uses and has a streetscape and built form that is pedestrian -friendly.
The Official Plan acknowledges that Major Transit Station Areas may include lands within stable
residential neighbourhoods which are not the primary focus for intensification. The subject lands are
outside of the stable residential neighbourhood and are already designated and zoned for high
density development.
Page 161 of 256
The City's Growth Management Strategy
The strategy outlines where new development will take place within our city to ensure it is
complementary to our community priorities and aligned with our future infrastructure investments.
As it relates to the subject lands, a Priority `A' rating has been assigned, which means the City will
actively work on applications towards an approval.
PARTS Midtown Plan
The subject lands are located within the PARTS Midtown Plan, which is a guiding document that
made recommendations for land uses around rapid transit station areas. The Midtown Plan made
recommendations for amendments to the Secondary Plans within the MTSA, which have not yet
been implemented. One of the principal recommendations was to protect stable neighbourhoods
by directing growth in the areas such as the Mixed -Use Corridors. As the subject lands are situated
adjacent to the Grand River Hospital LRT station, higher density is appropriate, and it will help
support transit use.
Additionally, the PARTS Midtown recommended that transition regulations be implemented in
zoning by-laws to protect the transition of higher density development adjacent to stable
neighbourhoods. One of the key strategies is to ensure buildings are scaled to integrate within their
surroundings by locating taller elements closer to the transit stops. Create a smooth transition in
height down to established neighbourhoods. The tower is designed to shift massing and height
closest to the transit stop and directly opposite to the commercial building in behind which is located
off Pine Street. This combined with a 3 storey podium ensures transition occurs between the
proposed development, the commercial lands directly behind and the residential dwellings of the
Mary/Pine neighbourhood.
Neighbourhood Planning Review Proposed Zoning
Properties located within Secondary Plans are undergoing Neighbourhood Planning Reviews which
includes updates to the Official Plan/Secondary Plans and to the proposed Zoning By-law. The City
of Kitchener's recently updatedZoning By-law (2019-051) does not include lands within anticipated
MTSAs or within Secondary Plan areas. As part of the NPR, the city has prepared proposed
amendments to the Zoning Bylaw 2019-051, but these have not yet been considered by Council and
may be subject to change. The draft zoning regulations are available on the City of Kitchener
website and the proposed development is identified as a MIX -3: Medium to High Rise Mixed
Use Three Zone — which plans to accommodate a variety of uses within mixed use buildings
and mixed-use developments at a medium to high density. If approved, it is anticipated that
the site-specific zoning contemplated in the Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 85-1, would
be carried forward into a future stage of Zoning By-law 2019-051.
Urban Design Manual - Tall Buildings Guidelines
Tall Buildings Guidelines are in the Urban Design Manual. The objective of this document is to:
• achieve a positive relationship between high-rise buildings and their existing and planned
context;
• create a built environment that respects and enhances the city's open space system,
pedestrian, and cyclist amenities and streetscapes;
• create human -scaled pedestrian -friendly streets, and attractive public spaces that contribute
to livable, safe, and healthy communities;
• promote tall buildings that contribute to the view of the skyline and enhance orientation,
wayfinding and the image of the city;
• promote development that responds to the physical environment and microclimate and the
natural environment through design, including four season design and sustainability; and
Page 162 of 256
• promote tall building design excellence to help create visually and functionally pleasing
buildings of architectural significance.
The proposed development has been designed with these objectives in mind. Urban Design staff
has confirmed that the proposed tower is generally consistent with and meet the overall intent of the
guidelines. Tower separation, wind, shadow analyses are acceptable and consistent with the UDM.
Detailed design elements will be implemented at the site plan approval stage.
Zoning By-law Amendment
A Zoning By-law Amendment has been submitted with this report to rezone the subject lands from
High Intensity Mixed Use Zone (MU -3) to High Intensity Mixed Use Zone (MU -3) with special
regulation provision 775R to accommodate the proposed development. Each of the recommended
site-specific zoning provision is discussed in greater detail below.
1. Reduced rear yard setback of 0.73 whereas 14.0 m is required
The applicant is seeking relief from Section 55.2.2.2 a) of the Zoning By-law to permit a rear yard
setback from the west lot line of 0.73m. The setback applies to the 3 storey podium only as the tower
is setback more than 17m from the property line. Tall mixed use developments are often comprised
of a tower with a podium at the bottom. The intent of the rear yard setback is to create a separation
from the neighbouring properties. Although the west property line is considered the rear yard in
accordance with the Zoning By-law definition, it functions more as a side yard. The adjacent use at
904 King Street West is a Traction Powered Sub Station (TPSS). This land is owned by the Region
of Waterloo and is a site that is required to power the LRT. As such, the TPSS provides additional
separation between the proposed development and any development planned further west of the
property.
2. Increased Floor Space Ratio of 10.1 whereas a maximum of 4.0 is permitted
The applicant is seeking permission to amend Section 55.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a
maximum Floor Space Ratio of 10.1 for the proposed building, whereas a maximum of 4.0 is
permitted.
The increase to the Floor Space Ratio is appropriate for sites located within a MTSA and adjacent
to an ION station. The additional Floor Space on site will accommodate additional floor area, which
will be used for office, commercial, and residential uses. Concentrating high density developments
adjacent to ION stations supports the significant investment that has been made in the Region of
Waterloo's Rapid Transit System and is in alignment with Provincial, Regional and local policy that
directs intensification to MTSAs as a priority.
3. A parking rate of 0.71 spaces per unit for Multiple Dwelling Units and 0.165 spaces per unit
for Multiple Dwelling Units less than 51 sq. m
The applicant is seeking permission to amend Section 6.2.1 a) to permit parking at a rate of 0.71 per
unit for Multiple Dwelling Units, and 0.165 spaces per unit for Multiple Dwelling Units less than 51
sq.m. in size.
The OP supports parking reductions for sites that are well served by transit and particularly by the
LRT. Parking at a rate of 0.71 per unit is being requested due to the site being located adjacent to
the Grand River Hospital ION station. It is anticipated that the residents will utilize existing transit
and active transportation as primary modes of transportation. A Parking Justification Report has
Page 163 of 256
been prepared and submitted to support the parking rate proposed as part of the ZBA and has been
reviewed by Transportation staff.
The Zoning By-law permits reduced parking for units less than 51 sq.m. in size for a maximum of
40% of the total units. A special regulation is proposed that would allow the reduced rate to apply
to all units less than 51 sq.m. in size. This increase is being recommended given the TDM measures
and proximity to high order transit options.
5. A visitor parking rate of 10% of required parking.
The applicant is seeking permission to amend Section 6.2.1 b) vi) B) to permit Visitor Parking at a
rate of 10% of required parking.
Visitor parking is to be shared with commercial uses. By-law 2019-051 — Kitchener's new Zoning
By-law — allows for shared parking arrangements in mixed use developments. The By-law does not
apply to these lands, so the regulation does not apply. The 10% visitor rate is consistent with the
required visitor parking for MIX zoned lands in By-law 2019-051. The City of Kitchener has also
approved other applications seeking a 10% visitor parking rate. This is to recognize the fact that as
overall parking is proposed to be reduced, it is appropriate to also consider reductions to visitor
parking rates as visitors will be able to access the site through alternative modes of transportation.
6. Permitting commercial/retail uses without a minimum parking requirement.
The applicant is seeking permission to amend Section 6.2.1 a) to allow commercial/retail uses
without a minimum parking requirement.
The visitor parking is proposed to be shared between the residential visitor and commercial uses as
noted above. It is not anticipated that the ground floor commercial/retail area will generate a
significant amount of vehicular traffic. Secure bike parking is proposed for employees of the
commercial units and outdoor bicycle parking will be provided for public use.
7. Permitting Hotel Parking at a rate of 0 spaces per guest room.
The applicant is seeking permission to amend Section 6.2.1 a) to permit Hotel Parking at a rate of 0
spaces per guest room.
The owners are seeking a partnership with the Grand River Hospital Foundation (GRHF) for the
provision of suites and office space for exclusive use by GRHF to accommodate family and
caregivers for those seeking treatment at the Grand River Hospital. To that end, GRHF has
confirmed that there is parking available at the hospital and that no parking is required at the subject
lands. The GRHF residential units would be considered a Hotel use under the Zoning By-law.
In summary, to implement the proposed development plan, several site-specific regulations are
being recommended given context, site location and proximity to the LRT. Staff recommend that the
proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Appendix "C".
Technical Analysis
Traffic Study/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking Reduction
Justification
A Traffic Study, TDM and Parking Reduction Justification study was submitted to understand and
assess the transportation context and infrastructure to support the proposed applications for the site.
Page 164 of 256
The main conclusions reached are as follows:
1. During weekday morning and afternoon periods, the proposal is estimated to generate 50 and 45
vehicle trips, respectively;
2. The site is well located for travel by transit and active transportation;
3. Bicycle parking on-site will be provided beyond current requirements; and
4. TDM measures will be incorporated into the proposal to encourage travel alternatives by transit,
walking and cycling including:
• Indoor secure bike parking,
• Unbundled parking, and
• Inclusion of a carshare vehicle on-site.
In summary, based on the proposed TDM measures and the site context, the proposed development
is well suited to serve pedestrians, cyclists, car share users and transit users, and as a result, the
proposed parking justification is appropriate.
Shadow Impact Study
A Shadow Impact Analysis was completed to determine any impact that the proposed building
design may have on nearby residential areas. The study provided an assessment for three periods
during the day including 10:00am, 1:00pm and 4:00pm shadows for the months of March, June,
September and December. The study identified that any proposed shadows cast by the tower fall
within acceptable ranges for the three critical time periods of March, June, and September. During
December, however, the effect of shadow is more apparent. This is a common occurrence at this
time of year where the sun's angle is at its lowest and shadows cast further as a result. Winter is
the least critical period because people spend most of their time indoors.
Additional shadow impact was undertaken to address concerns of residents. It, too, has shown that
the effects are minimal.
Staff has considered the study and is generally satisfied with the results. At least five (5) hours of
cumulative direct sunlight is maintained.
Wind Impact Study
A Pedestrian Wind Assessment was prepared for the subject lands by RWDI, dated March 26, 2021.
RWDI utilized the local wind climate, surrounding buildings and experience with wind tunneling
testing in their analysis. The study concluded that no unsafe or uncomfortable conditions are
expected.
The Wind Assessment provides the following recommendations:
• Wind control concepts for the commercial entrances.
• Additional wind control measures to provide appropriate conditions for outdoor dining
• Rooftop terrace requires strategically located vertical wind screens and/or planters to protect
the more sensitive passive use areas.
• A wind tunnel study is recommended to quantify these wind conditions and to refine any
conceptual wind mitigation measures presented in the Wind Assessment.
This study has been reviewed and accepted by City staff. Any of the recommendations noted above
are to be carried out as part of Site Plan approval.
Noise and Vibration Study
Page 165 of 256
A Noise and Vibration Impact Study was prepared for the subject lands by RWDI. The following
noise control measures are recommended for the proposed development: Installation of central air-
conditioning; the inclusion of noise warning clauses; and suite bedroom window glazing with
minimum sound isolation performance of STC 36 for the south fagade.
The potential vibration impacts due to the adjacent Grand River Transit ION Light Rail line was
evaluated. No mitigation measures for vibration are recommended as measured levels of the Light
Rail Transit passes were below applicable limits.
The study recommends that the building design be further evaluated through detailed design to
ensure that the acoustical design is adequately implemented to meet applicable criteria.
Regional staff has reviewed the study and concur with the recommendations to undertake a detailed
assessment at the site plan stage. A holding provision has been proposed at the request of Regional
staff. It will have to be lifted, prior to site plan approval.
Heritage Conservation
The subject lands are not identified as being of cultural heritage value or interest by the City of
Kitchener and do not contain any significant built heritage resources which are designated or `listed'
under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Servicing Considerations
A Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report were prepared in support of the
proposed redevelopment. The purpose of this report is to document servicing, grading and
stormwater management opportunities and constraints for the subject lands. The conclusions of the
study confirm that the proposed development can be adequately serviced by municipal water and
sanitary infrastructure but there is no storm sewer. Plans are proposed to extend the storm sewer
along Pine from Mary Street. Detailed design will be carried out as part of site plan approval. This
conclusion has been corroborated by City Engineering staff.
Site Plan
Site Plan application SP22/01 1 /K/BB to redevelop these lands with the concept described above
was submitted in late 2021. The site plan was considered at SPRC Meeting of February 16, 2022.
It is anticipated that approval in principle will be granted pending additional urban design review,
overall improvements to building design, and pending Council's approval of the land use
permissions. Staff has met with the project Architect, and the Project Planning Consultant on several
occasions to provide input on the design of the site. Considerable improvements to the overall site
and building design have occurred, including improved building elevations. Staff is generally
satisfied with the building and site design.
Department and Agency Comments:
Preliminary circulation of the OPA and ZBA was undertaken on June 30, 2021, to applicable City
departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting
City department or agency. Additional consideration will be addressed through the site development
approval process. Copies of comments are found in Appendix `D' of this report.
The following Reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed OPA and ZBA:
• Planning Justification Report
Prepared by: MHBC Planning, May 2021
Page 166 of 256
• Functional Servicing Letter
Prepared by: Meritech Engineering, April 27, 2021
• Transportation Impact, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Justification Study
Prepared by: Salvini Consulting April, 2021
• Sustainability Statement
Prepared by SRM Architects Inc., April 16, 2021
• Noise & Vibration Study
Prepared by: RWDI, March 30, 2021
• Shadow Study
Prepared by: SRM Architects Inc., November 2, 2021
• Pedestrian Wind Assessment
Prepared by: RWDI, March 26, 2021
NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSE:
Planning staff received written submissions which are attached as Appendix "E". Comments were
received following the initial circulation in July 2021 and at a Neighbourhood Meeting (NM) that was
held on October 6, 2021. Approximately 37 individuals, including members of the media, attended
the NM. Additional information on the comments received from community members during the
consultation on these applications is described in greater detail below.
Overall, comments received were generally understanding that development would take place but
not at the scale and intensity being proposed. The primary issues raised were as follows:
• Traffic - impact to surrounding road network
• Parking — ensuring there is enough parking on-site
• Compatibility — height too tall
• Shadow impacts
• Loss of privacy and overlook concerns
• Affordable housing
Traffic
Traffic impacts associated with the development proposal was cited often by residents who live on
Pine, Mary, and Herbert streets. To respond, the subject lands front onto both a Regional Road
(King Street E.) and a Local Street (Pine Street). The principal access to the development is from
King Street with a secondary access proposed off Dodd's Lane into the parking structure for visitor
parking only. As a result, it is anticipated that most of the traffic generated from this development
will use King Street thus avoiding direct travel through adjacent residential areas. Having access to
King and Dodds Lane allows a split of the total traffic, keeping the majority off Dodds Lane at the
request of comments received. The vehicle access does not dominate the fagade along King Street.
The split ramp design limits ramping within the building on the ground floor, allowing more ground
floor area to be used for active uses.
King Street is designed to accommodate large volumes of traffic and can support the additional traffic
proposed. Regional Transportation Planning staff has no concerns. While it is anticipated
surrounding residential streets may experience some traffic associated with this development,
Page 167 of 256
Transportation Planning staff has considered proposed traffic movements and volumes and is
confident the operational capacities of these surroundings local roadways will not be exceeded.
Parking
Residents expressed concerns and wanted to ensure that adequate visitor parking be provided on
site to avoid spillover parking onto surrounding neighbourhood streets. This is a common concern
and one that staff is always trying to balance by encouraging TDM to reduce vehicle trip generation
(and a need for lots of parking spaces) in favour of public transportation, cycling or walking. Staff is
of the opinion this development proposal strikes a balance of providing on -street parking spaces and
supporting TDM measures. Although a parking reduction is being sought, a total of 109 parking
spaces will be provided while incorporating a number of TDM measures to promote and incentivize
using other forms of transportation such as providing unbundled parking, transit passes, indoor
cycling storage, car share spaces and active uses at grade to offset the reduction. Moreover, the
location of the subject lands relative to the Grand River Hospital ION station and other retail and
employment opportunities combined with the fact this is a mixed use proposal, will lead to walking,
cycling, or taking public transit more often than driving for future residents of this development. The
objective of TDM is to encourage a shift in behaviour from a car dominated culture towards one of
using public transportation, cycling, and walking. Limiting the amount of parking helps to drive this
change in behaviour. Staff is of the opinion that there is a balance of supplying enough parking for
the development while providing a number of TDM measures to encourage use of public transit,
cycling, and walking as this area of the community evolves and grows over the longer term.
Compatibility
There were a number of comments expressing concern with the compatibility of the proposal. Staff
can appreciate and understand this sentiment as the proposal represents change for the area. It is
acknowledged that much of the area is presently developed with low -to -mid rise forms of
commercial/residential land uses. That is changing as there are several new developments
underway including ones located at 690 King Street (6 storeys) and 607 King Street (Station Park —
18 to 44 storeys). Development along the King Street West Mixed Use Corridor, including existing
development, recently approved developments, and current development proposals reflect the
presence of LRT and the importance of providing transit supportive densities in MTSAs.
Most of the lands situated within the King Street West Mixed Use Corridor have been targeted for
planned growth, promoting a vision of mixed land uses of commercial/residential at a higher intensity,
particularly for lands that have been consolidated into a larger parcel or do not directly back onto
residentially zoned lands. The subject parcel of land would fall in the latter category as it backs onto
a commercial zoned property developed with a six storey commercial building. The proximity of the
subject lands to Grand River Hospital ION justifies higher density mixed-use developments to
support the planned function of a MTSA. Moreover, despite the scale and density, the site has been
designed to promote compatibility including a podium that is 3 storeys in height, pushed to the
property edges and activated with commercial uses to provide a positive pedestrian -oriented
streetscape and public realm. The tower will be step -backed from the podium so that the presence
of height is minimized from the street level. The tower is shifted closer to the King and Pine Street
intersection. The floor plate size of the tower is narrower to reduce impacts of wind and shadow,
while promoting wayfinding and visual interest. The primary vehicular entrance/exit to the site is off
King Street which is designed to carry large volumes of traffic thus vehicles do not have to travel
directly through residential neighbourhoods.
Shadow Impacts
Given the proposed height of the building, many residents who live in the nearby residential
neighbourhood are concerned with shadow impacts. The applicant prepared a Shadow Impact
Page 168 of 256
Analysis, and this has been reviewed by the City's Urban Design staff. The study provided an
assessment for three periods during the day including 10:OOam, 1:OOpm and 4:OOpm shadows for
the months of March, June, September and December. Additional shadow analysis was undertaken
for earlier in the morning and into the evening hours at the request of residents. Staff has reviewed
the data and support the findings of the analyses that shadow impact is minimal and acceptable
based on evaluating criteria of the Tall Building Guidelines.
Loss of Privacy/Overlook Concerns
Some residents expressed concern for the potential of the loss of privacy with the introduction of a
tall building to their community.
Staff understand the concern, but it is important to note that the existing zoning permissions would
permit a building of approximately 11-12 storeys in height located 1.5 metres from Dodd's Lane. The
potential for overlook would still occur under the existing permissions scenario. This proposal
however shifts the tower closer to King/Pine and Dodds Lane to create separation between low rise
residential and the proposed tower and it brings the tower more in line with the commercial building
directly behind. This measure, combined with the podium blocking views at the lower levels while
incorporating inset balconies at the higher levels, will help to limit views and mitigate the concern.
Affordable Housing
Some residents raised the question of the provision of affordable housing. The development
includes 231 purpose-built rental units comprised of a mix of studio, one and two bedroom units that
will provide an immediate supply of rental housing within an intensification area identified in the OP.
The residential density achieved through this development provides for a more affordable housing
option than many existing housing options within the City's central neighbourhoods. The units will
appeal to a broad demographic range including singles, families and seniors. Additionally, the
proposal also includes a much-needed partnership with the GRHF to provide housing to families
from out of town seeking medical care at Grand River Hospital.
Planning Conclusions
In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and
Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 890-900 King Street E. to be developed with a mixed-use
building 25 storeys in height. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are in keeping with
the objectives of the KW Hospital Secondary Plan, are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy
Statement (2020), conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official
Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. Staff recommends that
the applications be approved.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Council / Committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding
the application posted to the City's website in the summer of 2021. Following the initial circulation
Page 169 of 256
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 Meeting on October 6, 2021 and Notice of the Public Meeting was
posted in The Record on February 11, 2022 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix C).
CONSULT — The OPA and ZBA were originally circulated to property owners within 120 metres of
the subject lands on June 19, 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses
from 38 households, which are included in Appendix `E'.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Municipal Act, 2001
• Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
• Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
• A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020
• Regional Official Plan, 2010
• City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014
• Kitchener Growth Management Strategy
• Zoning By-law 85-1 & 2019-051
• City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual
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
— Community Comments
Page 170 of 256
AMENDMENT NO. TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
CITY OF KITCHENER
890-900 King Street West
Page 171 of 256
AMENDMENT NO. TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
890-900 King Street West
INDEX
SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
Page 172 of 256
AMENDMENT NO. TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS
This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the 1994 Official Plan of
the City of Kitchener. This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive and
Schedule `A'.
SECTION 2 — PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
The purpose of this amendment is to add a Special Policy to the K -W Hospital Secondary
Plan in the 1994 Official Plan and to amend Map 18 — K -W Hospital Secondary Plan to
increase the maximum permitted density on the lands, municipally known as 890-900 King
Street West, to facilitate the redevelopment for a 25 storey, mix use building with ground
floor commercial, 231 residential units and 108 parking spaces. The proposed
development contains a single residential tower on top of a mixed use podium base. The
tower has been oriented towards the intersection of King Street West and Pine Street.
Ground floor commercial units are proposed facing King Street West and all parking is
located underground or within the podium. The development contains a range of unit
sizes and types. The primary vehicular access to the development will be from King Street
West. A secondary vehicular access is provided from Dodds Lane which primarily
provides access to the visitor parking. .
SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The subject Iands,890-900 King Street West, are located at the northeasterly corner of
King Street West and Pine Street. The subject lands are located within the designated
Built -Up Area and are also located within a Major Transit Station Area. The lands are
designated Mixed Use Corridor in the K -W Hospital Secondary Plan, which forms part of
the 1994 Official Plan. The Mixed -Use Corridor designation in the K -W Hospital
Secondary Plan encourages higher density, mixed use development and
redevelopment.
The proposed development has been reviewed relative to applicable Provincial and
Regional Policies. These policy documents provide the following direction:
• The goals of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is to provide a vision for land
use planning in Ontario that encourages the efficient use of land, resources and
public investment in infrastructure. A mix of land uses are encouraged to provide
choice and diversity. A variety of transportation modes to facilitate pedestrian
movement, less reliance on the automobile, and use of public transit is
encouraged as a means of creating more sustainable, livable and healthy
Page 173 of 256
communities. The PPS encourages development that will provide for long-term
prosperity, environmental health and social well-being.
• The PPS provides that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and
development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Land use
patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land
uses which efficiently use land and resources.
• The proposed development is located within an area planned for intensification.
The Growth Plan prioritizes intensification within strategic growth areas which
include both Major Transit Station Areas and brownfield sites, both of which
applies to the subject lands. The proposed development meets the criteria of
the Places to Grow Policy by planning a development for intensification within a
Major Transit Station Area that is of an appropriate scale to support the transit
infrastructure and utilizes existing services.
• The Region's Official Plan (ROP) states that most of the region's future growth
should be directed to Urban Growth, Centres, Major Transit Station Areas,
Reurbanization Corridors, Major Local Nodes and Urban Designated Greenfield
areas. Generally, these areas should create a more compact urban form.
• The ROP promotes medium and higher density development as close as
possible to the transit stop to support higher frequency transit service and
optimize transit rider convenience;
The current policy framework of the City under the K -W Hospital Plan permits mixed
development at floor space ratio of 4.0 whereas the proponent is requesting 10.1.
These policies pre -date a number of policy documents including the current Provincial
Policy Statement, the current Growth Plan, the current Regional Official Plan and the
2014 City of Kitchener Official Plan. When the City's Official Plan was updated in 2014
the Secondary Plans, including the K -W Hospital Plan, were deferred in order to
complete more detailed PARTS planning and the related Neighbourhood Review
process. These Secondary Plans are in the process of being updated, with final
approval pending the Regional review of its Official Plan which is currently underway.
In order to implement the proposed mixed-use development, an amendment to the
Secondary Plan is required to increase the Floor Space Ratio from 4.0 to 10.1. This is
increase is appropriate given the location within a Major Transit Station, the adjacency
to the Grand River Hospital ION stop, the location along a major Regional Road, and
the ability to design the site in manner which minimizes impacts on surrounding
development. The subject lands do not directly abut low-rise residential development
and are separated from the closest low-rise residential properties by Dodds Lane and
other non-residential uses. It has been demonstrated the increased density across from
the ION stop is supportable and compatible with the objectives of the PARTS Plans.
The proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and
conforms to the Growth Plan and the Region of Waterloo Official Plan. The proposed
development implements broader policy direction as it relates to implementation, and
reflect the City's 2014 Official Plan, which identifies Major Transit Station Areas as
primary intensification areas. The subject land are also a Brownfield site. Brownfields
are also considered priorities for redevelopment.
Page 174 of 256
The City's intensification areas are intended to provide for a broad range and mix of
uses in an area of higher density and activity than surrounding areas. As noted in
Policy 3.C.2.17 of the Official Plan, the planned function of Major Transit Station Areas,
in order to support transit and rapid transit, is to:
a) provide a focus for accommodating growth through development to support
existing and planned transit and rapid transit service levels;
b) provide connectivity of various modes of transportation to the transit system;
c) achieve a mix of residential, office (including major office), institutional (including
major institutional) and commercial development (including retail commercial
centres), wherever appropriate; and,
d) have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit oriented.
The proposed development will support existing rapid transit service levels by providing
development immediately adjacent to an existing transit stop. The proposed
development provides housing adjacent to a major employer (Grand River Hospital)
allowing future residents to walk to work. The development incorporates bicycle parking
and will support active transportation. The development includes a mix of uses and
has a streetscape and built form that is pedestrian -friendly.
The Official Plan acknowledges that Major Transit Station Areas may include lands
within stable residential neighbourhoods which are not the primary focus for
intensification. The subject lands are outside of the stable residential neighbourhood
and are already designated and zoned for high density development.
An Official Plan Amendment is required to add a Special Policy to allow a maximum
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 10.1 to facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands with
a mixed use development, 25 storeys in height, having 231 dwelling units and ground
floor commercial floor space. The increase in FSR is required in order to implement the
mixed-use development concept for the lands. It is noted that the podium in its entirety
contributes towards the maximum permitted FSR (despite not containing residential
units) and as such the existing FSR does not provide for sufficient density to provide
both structured parking, commercial units and a sufficient number of dwelling units. The
site has been designed to minimize the impact of the increased density on surrounding
properties. This includes an increased tower setback from Dodds Lane (whereas the
current zoning by-law does not require a tower setback) and the positioning of the tower
towards the intersection of King and Pine.
In summary, the subject lands are identified in the 2014 Official Plan as being within a
Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) and are located directly across the street from Grand
River Hospital and the Grand River Hospital ION Stop. The proposed development
includes a high intensity mixed use development comprised of residential uses, ground
floor commercial/retail uses, as well as other non-residential uses, all at a density to
support both transit and active transportation. The site will include a variety of
transportation demand management measures in order to encourage the use of
alternative modes of transportation including public transit. To further encourage the use
Page 175 of 256
of alternative modes of transportation, a parking reduction is proposed. This is
consistent with Official Plan Policy 13.8.2 which encourages reduced parking space
demand in support of active transportation and transit and potential redevelopment of
surface parking lots especially in intensification areas. Policy 13.C.8.2 supports
adjustments to parking requirements for properties within an area or areas, where the
City is satisfied that adequate alternative parking facilities are available, where
developments adopt transportation demand management (TDM) measures or where
sufficient transit exists or is to be provided. The subject lands fulfill the criteria set out in
Policy 13.C.8.2.
The proposed development will implement the vision as set out in the Official Plan for
lands within a MTSA as being a compact, dense and transit supportive site that has
been designed with consideration to the compatibility with the established
neighbourhood to the northwest. The subject lands are strategically located within the
Midtown Major Transit Station Area, within a Mixed Use Corridor just minutes from the
downtown core and directly along the light rail transit route. Its prominent location
makes it ideal for the density proposed.
The maximum Floor Space Ratio, building height, tower floor plate size, setbacks for the
building, tower step backs, as well as on-site parking will be regulated in the site-
specific amending zoning by-law to ensure urban design elements are implemented and
onsite constraints are addressed.
The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth
Plan and complies with the Regional Official Plan, as it promotes walkability, is transit -
supportive, maximizes the use of existing and new infrastructure, and assists in
development of this area as a compact and complete community through the broad
range of uses. The proposed development implements the redevelopment vision for the
Major Transit Station Area as prescribed in both the current and newly adopted Official
Plan and is, therefore, good planning.
SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT
1. The 1994 City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
a) Part 3, Section 13.7.4 Special Policies is amended by adding new Section
13.7.4.20 thereto as follows:
"20. Notwithstanding the Mixed Use Corridor land use designation and
policies for the lands addressed as 890-900 King Street West, the
maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio shall be 10.1.
b) Map 18 — K -W Hospital Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use is amended by
adding Special Policy Area No. 20 to the lands, municipally known as 890-
900 King Street West, as shown on the attached Schedule A.
Page 176 of 256
Z Z �Z
Q U
m Cal 4
CL a m CO Wm
J 00 _0N Y LL
Q a L ao
U a p c -oa N p o a
Leap @ a) � oaQ o
o co � o U'i N
WOfnf(/ � o (n (nUa CO
W W 2 0 U U � _� o a� a cn ca O H c
y (D O N D 'UZ L m
U O a� c a Q X a a� Z W a
H
0 0-
�1 Ln D UZ 7 c W Q
Z W EW X 0 0 2
2 O n a Up Q m L
LL H Z W i a��i
s V
_ W o
LU
cl 1 Q Yu
dL
�~ E L� m
jjjf jj j,jf
Z
Cyt 4s- l'
U
`#�--�y 1, ks l'�iy4, ksi L'`•-,�x. _�
LL z
i ,. 4. ik.�., ; ,.• .c ; ,.• i.c
`LL 0
O N
. r k� `- t� V Lij
CN
a
LL
'4 r
i
�♦ r �� \ W O
i O
�Lo w
N
441 ` 'C w
LU
.r
♦ : f ;,a , o
f w
iW
J ( C_q
ZW Y
W
ti� = O00�
oy�
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 85-1, as amended,
known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener
— Cantiro King General Partner Ltd. — 890-900 King Street West)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Zoning By-law 85-1;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener
enacts as follows:
1. Schedule Numbers 39 and 75 of Appendix "A" to By-law 85-1 are hereby amended
by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as
Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from High Intensity
Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone MU -3
with Special Regulation Provision 775R.
2. Appendix "D" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 775R thereto
as follows:
"775.a) Notwithstanding Sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 of this By-law, for the lands
zoned MU -3 as shown on Schedules 39 and 75 of Appendix "A", the
following additional regulations shall apply:
i) canopies and stairs shall be subject to a 0.0 metres minimum
setback in relation to the King Street lot line.
b) Notwithstanding Section 6 of this By-law, for the lands zoned MU -3 as
shown on Schedules 39 and 75 of Appendix "A", the following additional
regulations shall apply:
i) required off-street parking (including visitor parking) may be shared
among the permitted uses;
ii) required off-street parking for multiple dwellings greater than 51.0
1
Page 178 of 256
square metres in size shall be provided at a rate of 0.71 spaces per
unit;
iii) required off-street parking for multiple dwellings less than 51.0 square
metres in size shall be provided at a rate of 0.165 spaces per unit;
iv) required off-street visitor parking shall be provided at a rate of 10 per
cent of the required parking for multiple residential uses;
v) no minimum off-street parking shall be required for non-residential
uses;
vi) a minimum of 10% of the parking spaces required for multiple dwellings
shall be designed to permit the future installation of electric vehicle
supply equipment;
vii) where the calculation of the total required electric vehicle parking
spaces or parking spaces designed to permit the future installation of
electric vehicle supply equipment results in a fraction, then the
requirement shall be the next lowest number;
viii) for Multiple Residential uses, the minimum requirement for Class A
bicycle parking stalls shall be 0.5 Class A Bicycle Stalls per unit;
ix) for Multiple Residential uses, a minimum of 6 Class B Bicycle Stalls
shall be provided, and these may be shared with non-residential uses;
x) no Class A bicycle spaces shall be required for non-residential uses;
and
A) no shower and change facilities shall be required for non-residential
uses.
c) Notwithstanding Section 55 of this By-law, for the lands zoned MU -3, as
shown on Schedules 39 and 75 of Appendix "A", the following additional
regulations shall apply:
i) the rear yard setback from the westerly lot line shall be 0.70 metres;
ii) the side yard setback along the northerly lot line (Dodds Lane) shall be
0.60 metres;
iii) the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 10.1;
2
Page 179 of 256
iv) the minimum percentage of non-residential uses required shall be 0%;
v) the minimum number of storeys in the Base of a Tall Building shall be 2
storeys or 7.0 metres;
vi) the maximum number of storeys in the Base of a Tall Building shall be
6 storeys or 24 metres;
vii) the minimum setback from Dodds Lane to the face of a building shall be
5.0 metres;
viii) the maximum building height shall be 81 metres; and
ix) the maximum number of storeys shall be 25 not including the
mechanical penthouse."
3. This By-law shall become effective at such time as Official Plan Amendment No.
_, 890-900 King Street West 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
12022.
Mayor
Clerk
3
Page 180 of 256
LO
N
O
co
r
N
O7
(6
n
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
890 - 900 King Street West
Concept drawing
Have Your Voice Heard!
Date: March 7, 2022
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
To view the staff report, agenda,
find meeting details or to
appear as a delegation, visit:
kitchener.ca/meetings
To learn more about this project,
including information on your
appeal rights, visit:
www.kitchenenca/
plan n i nga ppl ications
or contact:
Brian Bateman, Senior Planner
519.741.2200 x7869
brian.bateman@ kitchener.ca
Applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments will be
considered to permit a 25 storey mixed use building consisting of 231 dwelling
units and 108 parking spaces with a Floor Space Ratio of 10.1, reduced side and
rear yard setbacks and other site-specific regulations.
Page 182 of 256
Appendix
June 30,2021
Dear City/Agency Commenting Staff:
Application #: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/002VKJBB
Official Plan Amendment ()pA21/OO5/K/BB
Address: 89U-9UDKing Street VV.
[)vvne[CoDti[o
Ward: Ward S
Brian Bateman
Senior Planner (Urban Design)
[}8[) - Planning Division
Kitchener City Hall, 0m Floor
2OOKing Street West, p.O. Box 1118
Kitchener [)NN2G4G7
Phone: 51S-741-22O0ext. 7860
TTY. 1-860-969-0994
Fax: 519-741-2624
The City � Kitchener hos received applications fOr Amendments to the {Official Plan and Zoning By-law
fromfrom|NKitchener�B|opOlentSfo[the property located at 890-900 KjDQ Street W, directly across from Grand
River H0Spif8i The subject lands are currently developed with a 3storey commercial building and parking
The application is requesting relief from setbacks, parking and density requirements to permit a25-etOrey
building, including 8Rinternal parking structure, rooftop amenity terrace and atotal 0ƒ2J1residential
dwelling units. Tofacilitate the redevelopment, the owner has requested hoadd a special policy area t0the
Official Plan tOpermit afloor space ratio of1O.1 (as shown VOthe attached Schedule AJ.and that @special
regulation provision be added to the zoning by-law to allow the for the increase density, reduced . building
setbacks and parking requirements.
The following reports and studies have been provided in support of the aooicoUOD' and digital copies will
be forwarded to commenting departments and agencies as requested through the Pre -Submission
Consultation process.
m Planning Justification Report
* Urban Design CheoNist
� SuntniD8bi||b/ Statement
�
Architectural Drawings
�
Building Perspectives
� TIG 8'Parking Justification
"
Servicing Letter
�
Shadow and Wind Study
�
Site Development Concept Plan
�
Noise Feasibility Study
Before staff prepares a report on the requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law An`endmanta, an
opportunity is being provided to City Departments and other Ao8DoieS to Rl3k8 OODlmeDL \8/htt8D
Page 183 of 256
|f8person Urpublic body would otherwise have 8Dability toappeal the decision of the City of Kitchener to
the local Planning Appeal ThbVna|, but the person or public body does not make oral submissions at
public meeting or make written submission to the City of Kitchener prior to approval/refusal of the proposed
Zoning By-law Amendment Or DUiCiB| Plan AOnBDdOleDt, the person or public body may not be entitled to
appeal the decision.
If you wish to be notified of the decision of the City of Kitchener with respect to applications, VOU must
make a written request to City C|e[h, Department Of Corporate Serv|Ces, 200 King Street West, P.O. Box
1118.Kitchener, Ontario, N2(34G7.
|fyou have any questions nrrequire clarification, please feel free tucontact nneot519-741-2200x780S
Yours truly,
Brian Bateman, [WC|P.RPP
Senior Planner
Proposed Official Plan Map
Page 184 of 256
;u
4
Op D
C
00
(0 0
C
Z >0
r -G) C=
m z
z
m 0
G)
C/)
t
"NO
rn m
z PrZ
m -4 C,
0
>
m r -
m 0 L SCHEDULE
C-
- - - - - - - - - - -
SCHE�DULE
z J,
M CD MIV
C) cn
m Y x ",
C) CAI to
ry
o1w
a
k%k4 010
0 YA
z
ri T"In rn
<
m
m
r- 0 00
0
0-4. rL-
U) 0
m (D
>
m
--h >
00
app a ;ury
Z
m x
m
C/)
CU z
M>�: _7100
��:K 71 0 ( 'D -4 6) C." 0 0
Z m O> 7- Z
x 70 ;a ;u 0N C7
MMfzn m > 0
K: (D m -u C) G) (MI) mm m -0 K m
m C) z m F a�
, z
z N N mo M M M
_0 zw 0N 5� Z �O Z Z Z > U) --I
> Z 0 -Om --i --i --I
m z > > > > >
m m z
z m r- z
z C:) z 7O z cf) -n N U) M
G) >m m 0
CD 0 C:) z
z co m m
G) CTI U) 0z<mmz
Z
N c
co M N z>
ul 0 N z 0 X r-
ZOMZ m KNO
M z m 0 R 0 z
C10 W co m (=M z>
c) C) m
M C:
hu (-) U)
z 0 m
IRT C)
0
R Ull ;u
1p 0 �
C) X 0
0
R;
I
m
0
0
I
0
0
;0 0 m m
x 9: > z
>505m- 0Ol
1
m
(J)OT05 c
0 m
X
0
m z
0 N -q
>
0 M 0 Z -I
0
;u
m U) rTi m
Z
m
>
m
O a X
Z CCO m
_0 m
;13 Cl)
0 m
cn
0
z
z)>
Page 185 of 256
OD z
C/)
0
C) ;Do
0 --A 7" m
z
MZ
z ;UG) C:
r -
G) r-6) M
CD M
z
m
R
Page 186 of 256
0
3
a)
E.
(D
0
E; >
W,
Q
0 0 1
m
;:1.
(D
0
,
ro T
0 M.
ry0
0
a)
CL
050
42
Page 186 of 256
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 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
From: Christine Kompter
Sent: Monday, June 28, 20213:53 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@I<itchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPlanningDivisionC« I<itchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) -Trevor Heywood
<the wood randriver.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengellv@grandriver.ca>; Greg
Reitzel <Greg,Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.cam>; Jim Edmondson
<Jim.Edmondson@l<itchener,ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hu hes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron
< cameron kwh dro,on,ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda Cooper@kitchener,ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seilin @kitchener.ca>;
Ontario Power Generation <Executivev .lawanddevelo ment o .com>; Park Planning (SM)
<Park,Planning@kitchener,ca>; Region - Planning <Plan ningApplications re ionofwaterloo,ca>; Revenue
<Pro DataAdmin(cDl(itchener,ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan @ I<itchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven.R derCu)kitchener.ca>; UW - SA <Steven.amiril<ah uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning < Iannin wcdsb.ca>;
WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine burnsSa?wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning
<planning(_@wrdsb.ca>
Cc: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Brian Bateman, Senior Planner (copied on
this email).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 I Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 I christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
ap fto
Disclaimer - This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and contain privileged or copyright information.
You must not present this message to another party without gaining permission from the sender. If you are not the
intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose
other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this
email from your system. We do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects although due
care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board.
N
Page 187 of 256
From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 2:40 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Attachments: RE: Notice of (SP) Pre -submission Consultation Mtg - 890-900 King Street West
Good Afternoon Brian,
The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the above application and have no further comments to add
beyond the attached submitted for the Pre -submission Consultation.
If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca.
Thank you,
Jordan Beale
Planning Technician, WCDSB
480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6
519-578-3660 ext. 2355
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 20214:40 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPIanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; 'Feds' <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood
<theywood @grand river.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengeIly@grandrive r.ca>; Greg
Reitzel <Greg,Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One.- Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson
<Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine. Hughes@ kitchener.ca>; 'K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron'
<gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper < Linda. Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>;
'Ontario Power Generation'<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM)
<Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanniingApplications@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>; Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB -
Board Secretary (elaine_burns @wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca>;
Christine Goulet <Christine.Goulet@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Eau" tion E Xternal E:.maiI_ This,"Mess"a,ge c-o—,,.�.�.r—s—f,,,,,,,,."m �.,,..�,e-,x .ernal.-
t' age comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on unrecognized links or
provide your username and/or password.
Please see ShareFile link to view supporting documents -
Page 188 of 256
City of Kitchener
CONSULTATION ! • W
• r;; 11
Date of Meeting: No Meeting
Application Type: ZBA & OPA
Comments Of: Transportation Services
Commenter's Name: Steve Ryder
Email: steven.ryder@kitchener.ca
Phone: (519) 7412200 ext. 7152
Date of Comments: July 26, 2021
El I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion)
Cl I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)
1. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
Transportation Services offers the following comments on the Transportation Impact and
Parking Study completed by Salvini Consulting:
Traffic Impact Study:
o The traffic impact study completed is satisfactory and indicates that there will be no
adverse impact to the existing neighbourhood (including Pine St, Mary St and Herbert
St);
o The bulk of the trips generated by the proposed site will utilize King St as the main
access to and from the site, thus minimizing the impact to the surrounding local
roadways;
Parking Assessment & TDM:
o The TDM Checklist indicates that the subsidized transit passes to all occupants for two
(2) years will be utilized, but the text indicates that it is a potential TDM measure;
Confirm whether or not this TDM measure is intended to be included in the
justification as it will be implemented as part of an agreement on title for the
site through the ZBA;
c The total required parking as noted in Table 2 is calculated at 184 spaces, however, the
TDM Checklist indicates the total required parking is 174 spaces;
A City for Everyone
Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community
Page 189 of 256
in Confirm the discrepancy — is this just due to calculations about the units under
5Isqm?
o The proposed permitting system is useful for limiting the amount ofpeople who may try
toutilize the limited visitor/commercial parking on site;
u Given the proposed TDM measures, the proximity to existing alternative modes of travel
— cycling, walking, LRT, GRT — and the supplementary parking assessment study,
Transportation Services can support the requested reduction in parking regulations for
the site;
o An agreement on title should be considered part of the ZBA application in order to
ensure that the proposed measures to mitigate parking demand are implemented
appropriately nnthe site.
2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application:
� N/A
3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval:
0 None
4. Policies, Standards and Resources:
A City for Everyone
Page 190 of 256
From: Melissa Mohr < M Mohr@ regionofwaterloo.ca >
Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 2:16 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Cc: Jason Wigglesworth
Subject: [EXTERNAL] transportation Road Noise Comments - 890-900 King Street West
Good Afternoon Brian,
Please see the following Comments related to Transportation Noise for 890-900 King Street West:
Regional Corridor Planning staff have reviewed the transportation noise aspect of the noise study entitled "900 King Street
West, Kitchener, Ontario Noise and Vibration Impact Study" dated March 30, 2021 and completed by RWDL The noise
study is acceptable to Regional Corridor Planning staff at the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
stage. A and a detailed noise study will be required prior to Site Plan approval to address the transportation
noise related noise sources.
While the noise study is acceptable at this point a number of comments are identified below that must be addressed under
the detailed noise study:
It appears that RWDI used road traffic data (Appendix D) from the generic Region of Waterloo website and not via
the approved Regional Transportation department which looks at the background traffic growth rates in the area
and provides a formal traffic volume forecast. The study must be completed using the appropriate traffic data from
the Region of Waterloo. This link (https://rmow.permitcentral.ca/Permit/GroupApply?qroupld=3) will take you to
the correct website location. Under the detailed noise study the correct traffic data must be used.
The Owner's Statement and Consultant Statutory Declaration included in Appendix G of the Study are not dated
and not signed.
The noise study includes the out of date Region of Waterloo Noise Implementation Guidelines from 1999. The
guidelines have been updated in 2019 (https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/doing-
business/resources/DOCS ADMIN -3127473-v3-2019 Updated Noise Policy.lodfl,
Please be advised that Regional Planning staff are recommending a Holding Zone to obtain the detailed noise
study.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to ask.
Thanks in advance.
Kind Regards,
Melissa
Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner
Planning, Development and Legislative Services
Region of Waterloo
150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor, Kitchener ON N2G 4J3
Cell: 1-226-752-8622
mmohr(@.regionofwaterloo.ca
Confidentiality Notice: This email correspondence (including any attachments) may contain information which is
confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the designated
recipient(s) listed above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or
have otherwise received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by replying via e-mail, and destroy all copies
of this original correspondence (including any attachments). Thank you for your cooperation.
Page 191 of 256
City of Kitchener
• ;.a IT, It•
Address: 890-900 King St W
Applicant: CANTIRO Homes
Application #: Zoning By-law Amendment
�,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Comments Of:m
City of Kitchener— Urban Design- Planning
Commenter's Name: Pegah Fahimian
Email: Pegah.fahimian@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7342 dVM
Date of Comments: Feb, 07, 2022
❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussions r '`
® No meeting to be held
❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)
0 Vo
1� Documents Reviewed: °
Cover Letter
0 Planning Justification Report- MHBC Planning- May 202
Urban Design Brief- Scorecard. tU
Concept Plans and Elevations— SRM Architects A"'o, °
int
Shadow Studies, SRM Architects, Nov, 2021
Wind Study - Pedestrian Level Wind — Prelimilinar ,lmpaft*15sment. WRDI, March 26, 2021
fX h j4 V'
2. Site -Specific Comments & Issues:
While the concept of residential inten
have been incorporated into 1.1 -ie ppp,A
application to create a rdevebt�pi�e�ii la
neighbourhood.
n Desien
iron lhis'$ite is positive and many previous staff comments
1 �9M
Try flesign modifications must be addressed in the site plan
that is well designed and appropriate for this site and
I Wilding design guidelines are an excellent compatibility test for proposals exceeding
'0ngPermissions. The proposal meets the tall building guidelines, specifically with
to separation.
Shadow Studien SRM Architects Nov 2021
The submitted shadow analysis is acceptable as it confirms that the proposal maintained access
to at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight to nearby sidewalks and open spaces.
A City for Everyone
Working Together Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 1 of 3
Page 192 of 256
In IT OT r1l
Wind Study - Pedestrian Level Wind Assessment- RWDI
The submitted preliminary Wind Study indicates that the commercial entrances are expected to have less
than ideal conditions in the winter and wind control concepts should be provided. The grade -level patio
on King Street would require additional wind control to provide appropriate conditions for outdoor dining.
The roof -top terrace would also require strategically located vertical windscreens and /or planters to
protect the more sensitive passive use areas.
�6c .
A wind tunnel study should be provided at the site plan application stage to quantify th6!, coriditio sand
to refine any conceptual wind mitigation measures presented herein.
;
City of Kitchener
w
Balconies may bestaggered in n creative pattern to lighten the structure and
outdoor space for the units.
�
The proposed tower may beexpressed with alternating solid cladding a
glass curtain walls around living areas.
4City fPrEve ryone
Working Together — Growing Tho uQhtfuUy—Building Comm unity
Page 3of3
City of Kitchener
Zone Change/ Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
Address: 890-900 King St W
Owner: Cantiro
Application: Official Plan, Amendment# OPA21/005/K/BB and Zoning By-law Amendment
#ZBA21/008/K/BB
Comments Of: Parks and Cemeteries
Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross
Email: lenore.ross@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427
Date of Comments: July 07 2021
664��q'�"
0 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ON
9 No meeting to be held
4%
wal%'P"
El I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)
. ..........................
1. Documents Reviewed:
SRM Architects Site Plan D1.1 -r2 rev#2 dated 2021-0425
SRM Architects Floor Plans D2.0 -r2 to D2.7 -r2 (7pgs) re,,02 dated Adij]
00
2. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
I have reviewed the documentation (as listed abovq*)'gj% 1'kf'P 1 SPA and ZBA to allow the
redevelopment of the site to 25 -storey buildidrin6 , l�bdinV;',,,an'%internaI parking structure, rooftop
amenity terrace and a total of 231 residential dWelling u IS, d commercial space at grade.
jA//"
.1 Parkland Dedication will be deferred�, the ORX nd ZBA applications and taken as cash in lieu
of land at the site plan apphcatiqTi�l"V"'t
2 While King St W is a Regi n6H� a ("I street tree planting requirements are typically
'0 %
6
deferred to the Regioncomment, it is noted that the approved PARTS
RI'
Midtown Plan iderftifi'i�' r improvements along King St W as a key direction #1 with
'N
strategies to include FA Inb
V additional plantings, benches and bicycle parking in. addition
]k�
to trees on tW"
A' looment lands.
. I ' "
3 f'here,,,,�qre m
pid'e,5,t fng.��Oly-ownecl street trees along Pine Street and new street trees will be
r.. pe'uqjee, Pkaraing and Management Plan showing new street trees along Pine
it t,'tai Nkk
: "II y a certified Landscape Architect for review and approval by Parks and
,prmor to Final Site Plan approval will be required as part of the site plan
Tree planting shall conform to Section M of the Development Manual. Street
tries re required at a ratio of I tree for every 10 linear metres of street frontage.
3. Comments on Submitted Documents
The following comments should be considered in the development of the site plan application:
.1 SRM Architects Site Plan D1.1 -r2 rev#2 dated 2021-04-25
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 1 of 2
Page 195 of 256
RT Won T.474 TIZ MW
a), Street trees should be accommodated along Pine Street according to the Development
Manual standards and provided at the She Plan application as Street Tree Planting and
Management Plan.
4. Polic
Kitchener Official Plan Policy
As per Section 8.C2 Urban Forests ofthe Official Plan
* policy 8.C.2.16., the City requires the preparation and submissiorii of a tree,mo,nakipg1jerm plan
in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available 4ri i as a
condition of a development application.
* policy 8.C.2.6., the City will incorporate existing and/or new trees i t r road
rights-of-wayand encourage new development or redevelopment N`i ct and
conserve existing healthy trees and woodlands in accordanc n Des,ign Policies
in Section 13 (Landscape and Natural Features) of the Urba[h'D, al (UDM) and the
Development Manual.
CPlease see UDM Part C, Section 13 and www.kitc nt for detailed
* City of Kitchener Parkland Dedication Policy
* City orKitchener Development Manual �
�
PARTS — Midtown Plan (2O17)
—'
Anticipated Fees:
PARKLAND DEDICATION ESTIMATE
Parkland dedication will be retjuie�dfor'the site plan application taken as cash -in -lieu of land at
60 units, at a value of $1,359,000.00 per hectare as per the
init count of 231. The estimated parkland dedication cash -in -lieu
With its proposed resjden�ial i
Parklaod deditation is required for the application taken as cash -in -lieu of land. The policy
st,a:1,d,,,V, 43 v luation of $1,110,000 per hectare under the Commercial land class with a
ark edication rate of 2% of the total site will apply
"T , he ca.sh-in-Heu parkland dedication calculated for the proposed 0.21ha site is $4,662.00.
�
Total Combined:
The total combined parkland dedication required for the application including both the
Residential and commercial calculations is $632,520.00
ACity for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 2of2
Page 196Of256
From:
Christine Goulet
Sent:
Monday, July 26, 2021 9:55 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Hi Brian,
I have reviewed their functional servicing report for the OPA/ZBA. Their proposal is approved for a sanitary peak flow of
5.9L/s.
Kitchener Utilities reviewed the water servicing and found it acceptable.
Thanks,
Christine Goulet, C.E.T.
Project Manager I Development Engineering
519-741-2200 Ext. 7820
From: Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 202111:12 AM
To: Christine Goulet <Christine.Goulet@kitchener.ca>
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
m
Can you please review and provide comments?
Thanks,
Linda
Manager I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7974 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 linda.cooper(a@kitchener.ca
� U
�al ri err J//A� f :Fi
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 20213:53 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Janes <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones I<itchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@ws.p.co.m>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@I<itchener.ca>; David Paetz <David,Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) -Trevor Heywood
<theywood@grand rive r.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandrive r.ca>; Greg
Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@latchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson
<Jim.Edmondson@I<itchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydra - Greig Cameron
<gcameron@I<whydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seilingpkitchener.ca>;
Page 197 of 256
Ontario Power Generation<Etxeqcutivevp.iawanddevelopment@opg.com Park Planning (SM)
<Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning<PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data
Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven. Ryder@ kitchener.ca>; 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: Brian Bateman <BriannBateman kitchener.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Brian Bateman, Senior Planner (copied on
this email).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 61h 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
80 ��� ��
yid r0
Page 198 of 256
City of Kitchener
. r • r
Project Address: 890 — 900 King Street West
Application Type: Official Plan Amendment (OPA21/005/K/BB) and Zoning By-law
Amendment ZBA21/008/K/BB)
Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) — City of Kitchener
Commenter's name: Carrie Musselman
Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7068
Comments requested by: July 30, 2021
Comments provided: July 2, 2021
1. Plans5tudies and or Reports submitted and reviewed as art of a cam lete a licatian:
* 20053 — 900 King Street W., Sustainability Statement prepared by SRM Architects Inc., dated
April 16, 2021
2. Comments & Issues:
I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendment to permit a 25 -storey building, including an internal parking structure, rooftop amenity
terrace and a total of 231 residential dwelling units regarding sustainability and energy conservation and
provided the following:
Based on my review of the supporting study the Official Plan and Zoning By Law Amendments can be
supported. In part, as the owner has proposed a number of sustainable measures for the development,
such as:
Building envelope design will exceed building code minimum requirements for thermal
Performance.
Durable construction materials that exceed OBC requirements and are intended to last over 50
years.
Lighting that is at or below ASHRAE 90.1-2004 power density requirements.
Low consumption plumbing fixtures that exceed OBC requirements.
internal bike parking stalls are provided underground.
a Garbage room contains designated area for recycling (glass / plastic / metal).
Additionally, a Sustainability Statement (os per the City's Terms of Reference) will be required as part of a
complete Site Plan Application. It can build upon the information already provided and can further explore
and/or confirm which additional energy reduction measures are best suited to the site, building and
development. Potential items for consideration are:
Following (or incorporating components of) Energy Star, R-2000, Built Green, Passive House, LEED
or Net Zero that would go beyond the OBC to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
1 1 P a g e
Page 199 of 256
City of Kitchener
Sustainability Statement - Comment Form
w Irrigation water conservation measures.
a Providing electrical vehicle (EV) parking, charging or have space(s) EV ready.
w Having solar installed, or having the roof designed and built to be solar ready.
0 Indoor bicycle storage with shower/change facilities.
w Material choice and detailing toaddress bird collision avoidance guidelines.
� Policies Standards and Resources:
G Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7I,4.5.The City will encourage and support where feasible and
appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in
accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy
consumption.
0 Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas ofnew 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.
0 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.
0 Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.L6.27.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.
As part of the Kitchener Great Maces Award program every several years there is u Sustainable
Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate
and recognize bVSin2Ss8S and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability
Initiative - http:.susLainaNewater|oorngion.ca/ouppnograms/reQ\ona|-sustainabi|ity-
)� The can be found on the City's website under
'Planning Resources' at ...
a. htps kitchenecco/en/reoouroesGeneraKDocuments/DSD_PLAN Sustoinabi|hx_
2|PaQe
Page 200 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Michelle Drake
Sent:
Wednesday, June 30, 2021 11:38 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Cc:
Victoria Grohn
Subject:
FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
No heritage planning comments.
Michelle
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 20213:53 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) -Trevor Heywood
<theywood@grand river.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengeIly@grandrive r.ca>; Greg
Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson
<Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron
<gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>;
Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM)
<Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data
Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven. Ryder@ kitchener.ca>; 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: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Brian Bateman, Senior Planner (copied on
this email).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 61h Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@I<itchener.ca
Page 201 of 256
From: Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 4:13 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment -.OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Hey Brian,
890-900 King Street West is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment.
Thanks,
" k , Trevor Heywood
Resource Planner
Grand River Conservation Authority
m�h'wti theywood@grandriver. ca
Yo
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: June 28, 20213:53 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; Chris
Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengeIly@grandriver. ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis
DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes
<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper
<Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation
<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning
<PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropdataAdmin@kitchener.ca>;
Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; 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: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Brian Bateman, Senior Planner (copied on
this email).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant 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 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
Page 202 of 256
From: Mike Seiling
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 3:57 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Attachments: Agency Letter.pdf
Building; no concerns
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 20213:53 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Belle c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPIanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; ORCA (North Kitchener) -Trevor Heywood
<theywood@grandriver.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca>; Greg
Reitze) <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@kitehener.ca>;
Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM)
<Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning<PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data
Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; 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: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (890-900 King Street West)
Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Brian Bateman, Senior Planner (copied on
this email).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant ( 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.l<ompter@kitchener.ca
Page 203 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 12:27 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 890-900 King St. W Amendment Application
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Bill,
We received a letter about the proposal for a Zone change for 890-900 King St. W.
Although I am not opposed to some sort of structure going up on that sight, I feel a 25 storey building with 231
residential units is too high. Half that size would seem much more reasonable. One of the things we quite enjoy about
this area is that we do have views of the sky over the hospital but with a building taking up that entire lot, and at that
size will eliminate that natural light and I imagine darken our home signifincatly.
Another concern is an increase in traffic not only on our street (Mary St) but also the flow from Herbert St on to Pine St.
Mary and Herbert can already get people trying to bypass Union to get too King St. With a building of that size, the
traffic flow will make traffic a concern. Also, we already struggle with street parking and residents not even having
parking passes allowing us to park on the street during the day so I do worry about traffic flow and new parking issues
we may face as residents. Would the city start providing parking passes to residents along Mary St. if this project does
proceed?
I do like the idea of commercial units along the ground floor but, if you walk up King St. and other, newer buildings such
as the Cortes (222 King St S), those commercial units have never been occupied and have sat empty for years now. So
yes, in theory having those spaces for retail or restaurant type spaces would be a great addition, I have seen no evidence
that these spaces get occupied and as is the case with some other King St. store fronts in newer apartment/condo style
residents, those establishments do not succeed and end up closing.
My other question is: would these be units for purchase or for rent? If rental units, would they be considering affordable
housing units?
Thanks for taking the time to review this. Again, I am not opposed but my main concerns are the overall size and the
traffic concerns.
If you need to reach me:
Page 204 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 3:38 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re:
Sorry to hear that about the personal situation.
I am opposed to this development and don't know why they have to have so much height and so little parking. The
parking I guess I could be less worried about but I don't want to see congested side streets etc. My concern is that 25
stories is out of character and the FSR of 10 doesn't make any sense to me. This scale will be intimidating at this exact
location. I think that a smaller tower that was scaled back would be more appealing and appropriate. Not for us
neighbours but even for traffic and passerbys.
I have many concerns that the City is trying to push some of us out.
Anyways, thanks for listening and enjoy your summer.
Regards,
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 1:05 PM Brian Bateman <Brian. ateman@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you but had a death in the family and just got back. You may have already
discovered this but the information related to the development proposal is now on line.
Brian
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 202112:18 PM
To: Brian Bateman <rian.Bateman kitchener.cay
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re:
Well thank you for the prompt and honest response. Good luck with the difficulties.
I have technical difficulties every other day so I am not complaining. haha.
Page 205 of 256
Brian Bateman
From: I
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 1:25 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 890-900 King Street West Development
hope you are well. I received a piece of mail regarding the Neighbourhood Information
Meeting for the development of 890-900 King Street West. I would like to be added to the
mailing list regarding this project. I am also wondering if these Zoning Amendment
Applications are still up for debate, or if they are set in stone. Since demolition has already
begun, it seems that we have no say anymore, yet the letter we received seems to imply
otherwise. Please advise.
am not against increasing population density around the LRT and mid -town areas in
general, but have concerns regarding the height of this building, the amount of parking
(and where that parking will be), the length of time construction will take, and if genuine
affordable apartments are being put in place or if these are intended to be `luxury
apartments' thus leading to further gentrification of our neighbourhood and city. I also
have concerns regarding the ownership of this building. Cantiro is based in Edmonton and
would much rather see funds from, what will likely be, exorbitant housing prices go back
into our community - not pulled out of our neighbourhood for the benefit of an elite few
with no stake in our community.
Best,
Page 206 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 6:44 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 890-900 King St West Development
Dear Brian,
I am writing regarding the development proposal at 890-900 King St West. I am a homeowner on Mary St, just behind
the proposed site between Pine and Union.
I consider myself to be a Yes in my back yard person, so I was pleased to see the proposal, and I think that there are a lot
of good reasons for building a large development at such a location between uptown and downtown, near the LRT and
the hospital.
I do have some serious concerns that I hope will be addressed in the meeting or in further communications.
First, and foremost, I did not see anything about maintaining affordability of rent at the proposed building. I do not think
that we should continue to develop rental units that are out of reach for most of our area's residents. And I think that
we should be demanding firm commitments for fair -market and affordable units in the building. I am new to the area,
but I know that similar commitments at other developments have not been kept as things have changed over time. I
hope to hear more about how we will be insisting on mixed income or affordable units in the building.
Second, traffic is going to be a concern, and I hope you will talk with residents about our experiences on Mary street
after all of the changes to traffic patterns. We already are dealing with frequent high-speed use of our street to avoid
the no -left -turn on King street and to access the CTV parking lot. I know that changes are going to be made to Union
street soon, too, but I have to admit that I can't figure out how you are going to provide access for 250 rental units and
businesses while also keeping our street safe and usable.
I want to note that this concern, traffic, is not simply about being a homeowner on this street. Mary is a thoroughfare
for foot traffic from the existing apartments on Mary and the neighborhoods around us. Many folks use our street to
access the walkways in the cemetery and to connect to the spur line trail. I hope you have a plan for this --and I hope to
hear more about how you will manage the traffic issue. I have to admit that I can't figure it out.
Also, feel free to forward this concern to the powers that be. We could really use some traffic calming on this block of
Mary --maybe hte changes to Union will effect that change...
Third, and this has nothing to do with opposing or supporting the building, but I'd like to hear more about the
environmental studies and the plan for cleaning the site. Partly, I'm concerned about living here during the cleaning
process (and we have kids here too), but I'm also aware of the wind issues surrounding similar buildings in town. The
wind tunnels just up the road near Vincenzos are quite unpleasant at times.
Finally, I also wonder about what the future plan for the neighborhood is as we move into a world where we continue to
build up and not out. I'd like to hear about greenspace development and what kinds of parks we can expect in the area.
Obviously, we have quality parks nearby with Mary -Allen, but increasing density will put a strain on that infrastructure. I
also hope that things like shadow studies are being carefully considered, as this building will impact our vegetable
gardens --that's not a major concern with this one building, but if a row of them appear on King street, then I would want
to hear more about that concern.
Page 207 of 256
In closing, I support the growth of density near my home and in our neighborhood. I'm unsure that such a large
development can reasonably exist within the traffic patterns as they are constrained by the LRT, but, honestly, I hope
you can persuade me that this concern is not warranted. I know that some of my neighbors are a bit more skeptical than
me, so I wanted you to know that there are folks in the area who support careful, planned, and sensible growth. I hope
to hear, particularly about affordability and traffic.
I realize that I'm writing to you just a day or 2 before the meeting, so I appreciate your consideration. Feel free to follow
up afterwards if you don't get to this before the meeting.
Kind Regards,
Page 208 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:41 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Sarah Marsh; Garett Stevenson; kwills@mhbcplan.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Plan Amendment OPA21/005/K/BB
Dear Brian, Garet, and Sarah,
I am writing regarding the proposed development of the property located at 890-900 King Street West by CANTIRO.
I am concerned with this development for a number of reasons including:
1) Environmental impact on surrounding properties in terms of reduced light/ sun, increased emissions from vehicle
traffic to this area, and increased noise and light pollution.
2) Significant negative impact on the aesthetic of a beautiful historic neighbourhood.
3) Negative Impact on safety, traffic and parking on Mary Street which already is an issue due to high traffic from CTV
and hospital.
All of these above stated concerns have additional implications for the mental and physical health and well-being of the
residents of our Kitchener neighbourhood, which I trust is not in keeping with the goals of the City of Kitchener and the
Region of Waterloo. As such, I am not in support of this development.
This is a critical time in the development of the neighbourhoods surrounding the LRT and a more thoughtful, tempered
approach to developments is needed in order to preserve and promote our healthy community.
I am unable to attend the community meeting on July 28, but would appreciate being added to the email list for updates
regarding this issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
Page 209 of 256
Brian Bateman
From: Mary Plne Neighbourhood Association <marypineneighbourassociation@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 10:34 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Cc: Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CANTIRO developement
Dear Brian,
On behalf of the Mary/Pine Neighbourhood Association, please find below a list of questions we would like
answered regarding the CANTIRO development on 890-900 King St.
List of questions concerning the process:
1. Can we get a clarification of the process and what exactly has to be submitted by July 30?
2. Is this the only meeting before the final City decision?
3. What is the intent of the letter that one needs to send to Legislated Service before the approval
decision? Is it separate from the email we sent to Brian Bateman ?
4. When is the approval decision to be made?
5. Were Herbert Street residents notified of this development as well?
6. Were the residents of Mary street who live in the Waterloo section notified as well?
7. What do we have to do to be part of the process to make an appeal if necessary.
8. Is there going to be more opportunities for community consultation?
Sincerely,
Mary Pine Neighborhood association
Chair
Page 210 of 256
Brian Bateman
From: K4aryP|ne Neighbourhood Association ^marypinemeiQhbnurassodation@gmaiicomx
Sent: Tuesday, July 27,2O21 11:03 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Initial concerns
Dear Brian,
On behalf D[the K48[»/P|D2 Neighbourhood Association, please find helOVV a list Of initial concerns that we
feel [ANT|ROdevelopment isbound tocreate for the neighborhood.
Firstly, we are upset that the meeting is set up in the middle of the summer vacations when most neighbours
are unavailable. VVeshould have received the notification earlier.
List nfinitial concerns:
l-VVedonot see any reason for such adrastic re -zoning ofthe city planning from 4tolO.Ifloor space ratio,
which will change the entire structure and feeling ofthe neighborhood.
2-Abuilding of2Sstoreys and D2.70rnis one o[the highest inthe area and iiisinthe middle nfolively
historical residential area. Usets anunhealthy precedent and opens the door tofuture developments ufthe
same sort.
3 -The level Vfnoise created through the air conditioning units and the heating units would disturb the
tranquility oJthe neighbourhood.
4-Th2shadow that this building creates would affect houses all the way tOUnion street VnMary street. |t
also affects homes on Herbert Street and across the cemetery to Moore Street as well.
5 -The shadow will also affect the heating costs Ofhomes nearby.
6-|treduces privacy drastically: |tenables a hundred pairs 0feyes k}view the private moments Dfmost
houses and their backyards along Mary Street.
7 -The proposed rooftop invites gathering and parties which creates extra noise.
8 -This building creates a higher traffic volume in a very quiet street since Mary and Herbert are the only
natural points ofaccess from Waterloo.
In summary, we find that this building does not have its place near such a quiet residential and historic
neighborhood.
Executive Member
Page 211 of 256
Brian Bateman
From: Mary Plne Neighbourhood Association<marypineneighbourassociation@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 10:14 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CANTIRO Clarification Questions
Dear Brian,
Our neighbourhood association met after the Zoom meeting and we would like specific responses to several questions.
1) Regarding the July 30th deadline, we need to know exactly what needs to be submitted, in what format and to whom
in order to be included in an appeal process as per your comment in your flyer.
2) Is it true that anyone in the affected area can have a voice in this matter (as per Andrea Sinclair's response during the
meeting - ie. those who fall within the shadow area?
We look forward to your timely and specific responses.
Respectfully yours,
MPNA Members
Page 212 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 8:42 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Cc: Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 900 Pine St Development - follow up to meeting
Hi Brian. I have a couple of comments after the neighbourhood meeting with the developers on Wednesday.
A question was asked about a view of the proposed building from the Mary St side so I took the attached photo from my
back garden. The grey building just over the top of the fence is the medical building that is currently being torn down. In
it's place I will have the view of a 26 storey building - with balconies on all sides.
Dodds Lane is only wide enough for one car, although it allows traffic in both directions. The building drawings show a
parking entrance from Dodds Lane for some of the proposed parking spots. Is the lane wide enough for cars entering &
exiting at the same time? Is there a limit to the number of parking spaces accessed from the lane given the lane's
limitations?
Thanks
Page 213 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent:
Friday, July 30, 2021 10:47 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Cc:
Sarah Marsh
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Proposed high rise
ron NOTIT =-I
I am writing to express my complete rejection of a proposed building at the corner of King and
Pine which not only exceeds outrageously any building bylaws for the area, but is adjacent to
well established residential streets that would bear the brunt of all of the undesirable
byproducts — shadowing, traffic, parking issues as well as privacy ones.
Yes, there are other buildings in the city that are as high,, but those buildings are located in the
heart of the downtown core, amidst other high rises and in strictly commercial areas. They are
not located in residential neighbourhoods.
Obviously something will be built on that corner, but what is being proposed is entirely
inappropriate.
Kitchener
Page 214 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 12:00 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re 900 and 890 King St W development
Hi Brian. I am the property owner e : - I was unable to attend the public meeting on July 28 regarding this
proposal due to work engagements that were booked before that letter was even drafted. I am the property directly beside
the proposed development.
First off, the letter from you states a 25 -storey development. The sign at the exterior of the property says 26 -storey. Can
you please clarify?
It is my belief that the existing zoning allows up to 8 storeys. Is this correct? If so, why is there so much of a variation
between the existing allowable use?
There has never been a high rise allowed on this side of King St. in midtown. Why is this being considered?
As a property owner, I don't know if it's appropriate to have a 26 -storey building right next to my two storey building and
many other similar sized buildings in the neighbourhood.
Also, why is the subject property being currently dismantled when nothing has been approved?
Can you please provide insight on these items?
Thank you
Page 215 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 12:16 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Christine Tarling; Sarah Marsh; garret.stevenson@kitchener.ca
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning By -Law Amendment Application ZBA/008/K/BB
Attachments: 2021-07-30 ZBA008KBB 12MaryStreet.pdf
Please see attached for signed PDF.
Christine Tarling, City Clerk
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West,
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 4G7
30 July 2021
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is written to express my opposition to the Official Plan Amendment Application OPA21/005/K/BB,
Zoning By -Law Amendment ApplicationZBA/008/K/BB as proposed by CANTIRO at 890-900 King Street West,
Kitchener.
would also like to be included and informed of any further meetings or information regarding this proposal.
Respectfully yours,
Name:
Address
EmaV
Phone:
Signature:
Page 216 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 1:20 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Plan Amendment Application OPA21/005/K/BB
Dear Brian,
I am writing to you today with regards to your letter about the
development of the property located on 890-900 King Street West.
Needless to say, I am deeply concerned about how a 25 storey building
will affect residents, traffic flow and the general environment of my
neighbourhood should this building be developed as requested. While I
understand that the city's mandate is "to expand up not out", I believe
that our local community is not sufficiently equipped to handle such a
large development in such a small space. Below is a list of my initial
concerns.
1) Traffic Flow:
To begin with, the LRT has placed limits on the ability to turn left from
King St. onto Pine St. at that corner. Therefore, all traffic would have to
reroute by turning right only at Pine St (moving from downtown
Kitchener toward Waterloo) or make use of the adjacent streets (Herbert
and, Mary Streets) to provide access to the building for both tenants and
employees. Considering that Union St is slated to be undergoing
construction with the elimination of a left turn lane to Mary St,, I am very
concerned that traffic in, this area will become a nightmare. As well, we
are a residential area. Our street has many young families with young
children and we often have to deal with cars using us as a shortcut while
using excessive speeds. Allowing the development of 231 units will
create a nightmare scenario of traffic congestion and the unsafe use of
reside
Page 217 of 256
2) Property Values:
We have all prided ourselves on maintaining our "oasis in the core". If we
allow such a tall development, it is not unfathomable to foresee even
taller buildings being built along King Street in the near future. These
buildings will block sunlight, create wind tunnels and rob current
residents of their enjoyment, use and backyard privacy; thus, lowering
current property values for residents.
3) Environment:
With increased traffic flow and the removal of vegetation for the
development of this and future projects, I am also concerned for the
general health of residents in this area. This tall building will pave the way
for other tall buildings. It will increase traffic along with both air and
noise pollution. It will reduce greenspace. It goes against everything that
we know humans and animals require for a healthy existence.
At this time., I would like to request a copy of the environmental report
regarding contaminants on this site. I would further like to request a
proposed traffic plan to deal with the mitigation of cars using both Mary
and Herbert Streets as access to this proposed building. Finally, I would
like to be informed in writing of any future developments and reports
regarding the development of this property.
in closing, I would l,ike to state that I do not support the application for a
building of this height or capacity.
IN =1 I MRION Me,
Page 218 of 256
Brian Bateman
I
From:
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 12:18 PM
To: kwills@mhbcplan.com; Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link for meeting next Wednesday
Dear Brian and Kate
Can, you send me the link for the meeting next wednesday.
And include me in the mailing lists.
I just opened my mail andi realize that this is a big deal for the
neighborhood.
There is no building that size nearby so that could change the entire
dynamics of the, residential block.
Thanks,
Page 219 of 256
E • • ,Ta-flTm.
My name is l My wife and I own properties at
c, Kitchener and at in
Waterloo across the street from Sun Life. We feel as such that
we have a stake in what goes on in our neighbourhood and our
community. Let me preface my remarks by saying up front that
I am not anti -development. My son has long thought that the
King Street corridor is in need of a facelift and I for one tend to
agree. King Street is the major traffic corridor linking Kitchener
and Waterloo. It is the street from which most new visitors get
their first glimpse of K -W. As such, with the new transit system
on parallel tracks to King Street and with the push from the
provincial government as well as local and regional
governments to intensify population at stations along this
corridor we have a once in a lifetime chance of getting the
planning right for the building explosion that is already taking
place around us.
The one complaint I've heard time and again about the
proposed tower at 890-900 King Street West is that it is too tall
for the surrounding neighbourhood. At 25 stories that would
approximately be the same height as the Sun Life tower just
down the road. This building would be built mere metres from
the corner of the low-rise neighbourhood of Mary -Pine -
Herbert.
If we look at how the city of Waterloo has and is developing
around the Allen Street transit station, the 1St station north of
the Midtown transit station, it has kept development of tall
buildings to the south of King Street. Mary -Allen is the low-rise
neighbourhood to the north of King Street in Waterloo.
From the City of Kitchener Urban Design manual for tall
buildings, it reads "Towers must demonstrate compatibility
with their surroundings and transition in height and scale
through appropriate design of the projects built form. If a site
Page 220 of 256
does not allow for sensitive transition between tower and
lower -rise neighbourhoods it may not be suitable for a tall
building." It goes on to say "The greatest height and massing
should be located along primary corridor streets and internal
to large development sites. Each corridor should also have a
defined transition and built form between taller buildings
located inside the corridor, and the lower rise buildings located
in the surrounding neighbourhoods."
In Kitchener's planning around rapid transit areas as it
pertains to Midtown Station, the area surrounding this
proposed development has limited public open space and/or
passive or active recreation opportunities compared to the
other studied areas. It goes on to say that "Midtown is
anchored by a number of established stable residential
neighbourhoods. These contribute to the station's live/work
character and mix of housing choices, and provide a historical
character to the area. As Midtown experiences growth and
changes over time in response to the investment in higher
order transit, these established neighbourhoods should remain
stable."
Let's look at the zoning changes that the developers of 890-
900 King St. W. are asking for:
1. A reduction in rear yard set -back from 14m to .7m
2. A floor pace ratio increased from a max of 4.0 to 10.1
3. To amend the parking at a rate of .71 per unit for multiple
dwelling units greater than 51.0 sq. ra in size
4. To permit parking at a rate of 0.165 per unit for multiple
dwelling units less than 51.0 sq. m in size
Page 221 of 256
5. To amend visitor parking to a rate of 10% of required
parking. Visitor parking to be shared with commercial uses.
6. To amend to allow commercial/retail uses without a
minimum parking requirement
7. To amend Hotel Parking to a rate of 0 spaces per guest room
(if the GRHF space is provided in the final proposal)
All of these amendments serve one purpose and one purpose
only; that is to maximize floor space ratio to increase density,
defined as people and jobs per hectare, as per the chart in
section 4.2.2 of the Planning Justification Report for 890-900
King Street W. If we look at number 1 above it asks to reduce
rear yard set back froml4m to 0.7m. That is no small
reduction. This appears to fly in the face of the urban design
manual for the City of Kitchener, which states "Increased
setbacks may be considered for taller buildings (over ten
stories). Additional side and rear yard setbacks may be
required on tight infill sites to meet Ontario Building Code
spatial separation requirements." The purpose of this
amendment can only be to increase floor space ratio.
That leads to number 2. This is the big ask. Increase floor
space ratio from 4.0 to 10.1. If we look east of Midtown Station
to the development at 607-641 King Street West, which is part
of Central Station, they too are seeking amendments to the
official plan. Their amendments also seek to maximize floor
space ratio and asks to increase density from 4 to 7.5. Now that
in and of itself is quite a jump and propels this project's
buildings into the 25 stories and up range. All of the tall
buildings proposed and being built on this site are south of
King Street as are those in Waterloo. That makes the proposed
construction at 890-900 King Street an outlier. In relation to its
surroundings it will stick out like a sore thumb. A better
Page 222 of 256
proposal would be to develop the parking area previously
owned by Sun Life into tall buildings and commercial
development and scale down building heights along the north
side of King Street to better suit the abutting neighbourhood.
The Midtown Station study states that neighbourhoods
should remain stable. It does not mention how to achieve this
in an area that already has limited green space and passive
recreational areas. How will our neighbourhood retain its
unique character and stability when densification is coming at
it from not only King Street developments but also the Spurline
and Union Street developments?
Policy 2.2.4.3 states that Major Transit Station Areas on
priority transit corridors shall be planned with a minimum
density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare
for those served by light rail transit. The developer cites the
City of Kitchener DC. Background Study, 2014 for employment
areas as projecting the total number of people and jobs per
hectare on this site as planned at 2,085.1 presume that site, in
this context, refers to all of the Midtown Study area.
In the developer's words "Significant portions of MTSA's are
unlikely to achieve the minimum density targets. As such, lands
that are planned for intensification provide an opportunity for
increased densities to ensure that the MTSA as a whole
responds appropriately to the policy direction of the Province.
I repeat, these are the developer's words, not those of the city.
Therefore the developer proposes that this project increase
estimated density to 430 people and jobs per hectare from the
minimum goal of 160 people and jobs per hectare as put forth
in policy 2.2.4.3. This is an increase of 269 %. Midtown Station
gets to make up for the failings of the other stations to a tune of
2.7 times the minimum goal. WOW! Of the 2,085 people and
jobs per hectare total predicted for the Midtown Station Study
area this developer plans to eat up 20.6%. No greed there. I get
it though. Maximizing profit is the name of the game.
Page 223 of 256
As I said before I am not anti -development. I own property on
King Street as well as Mary Street and I stand to benefit from
all this development at some future time. But I also live here
and love this neighbourhood and will fight to preserve its
nature and character. If a tower full of apartments is the future
for the corner of Pine and King Streets at least scale it down to
a size that is more suited to the neighbourhood and the
buildings around it. Thank you for taking the time to read this
letter and please consider seriously the issues I have raised.
Page 224 of 256
Brian Bateman
From: DaynaEdwrds
Sent: Tuesday, October S, 2021 7:07 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Rosa BusLannante
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] 890 800 King St. W. Parking Portal on King St.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 5,2U213:32PM
Tm:hwiUs@nnhbcp|on.com
Cc: Sarah Marsh; Debbie Chapman; DaynaEdwards
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 890 - 900 King St. W. Parking Portal on King St.
Hello Kate:
Thanks for the update.
I note that the parking portal remains on King St. where it will disrupt & endanger pedestrians as well as the immediately
adjacent small parkette with a quiet contemplative bench - the best piece of public art in the region - where folks sit
facing the hospital & contemplate the ephemeral nature of our bodily existence.
The need for more public lanes to service new project parking entries in Kitchener is extreme. To disrupt the pedestrian
realm in this way when Dodds lane is fully available at the rear is unconscionable. Please encleavour to make the needed
Page 225 of 256
Brian Bateman
From: Mary Pine Neighbourhood Association <marypineneighboumssocistion@Vgnnai|zom>
Sent: Monday, September 20,2821 5:23 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 890-900 King Street CANTIRO Development
Follow UpFlag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Brian,
| hope you are well. Our association met last night, and would like toknow ifyou have any updates with regards toa
date for when City Council will bemeeting todiscuss this development. |fyou could let meknow, | know that our group
would appreciate it as many are interested in attending.
Secondly, we want to invite you to have a discussion with our association about the development in person (or virtually
if in-person is not possible). If you are available to meet with us, could you let us know some possible dates/times for
this? I believe one of our members who lives close to the development is interested in hosting.
Thanks so much for your support.
Take good care,
Page 226 of 256
Thank You
for your support
Thank •
• • a••
r
b
�Vll
Page 227 of 256
Brian Bateman
11
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 8:43 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 890/900 King Street West redevelopment
Dear Brian,
Thank you for the thoughtful public meeting last night. My husband and I live near the intersection of Herbert and Roger
street at with our two small children (3 years and 3 months).
We're supportive of densification along King street, especially as it's adjacent to the LRT stop and thrilled to be living in a
growing, energetic city. The design of the building also looks really sharp and modern.
We do have some concerns that we would like to express.
1. The height seems quite imposing in midtown. A building closer to the Bauer lofts at 15 stories would be much more
suitable in this section of the city rather than behemoth looking tower similar to the Barrelyards. It's quite hard to
imagine a building that size fitting into the landscape, although a tower a bit smaller would make complete sense and
add to the vibrancy of the community.
2. The volume and speed of cars going down Herbert street is also a big safety concern. As it is, we notice cars speeding
down the street quite often and making tight turns around Roger. We're greatly concerned of one of our children or
other child in the neighborhood being hit by a car. With more people, their guests etc living nearby this will only become
a bigger issue. It is a growing concern with our two small children's safety.
A. A stop sign at Herbert and Roger would really increase the safety and help slow down cars in this section of the road,
as well as increase their visibility of oncoming pedestrians
B. A sidewalk on Roger street adjacent to the cemetery would also greatly increase the safety of people, especially
children. There is no sidewalk for a block. This is especially pressing considering a park (which we're thrilled about) is
going to be built on Roger street and in light of the tower on King
C. Lowering the speed limit to 40km/hour on Herbert and Mary street. Again, we notice cars speeding right in this
section of the road near our house. There's going to be an increase in traffic on the side streets adjacent to King with the
tower going up to avoid traffic on king street and 50 km/ hour is simply unsafe
Thank you for your consideration,
Page 228 of 256
Brian Bateman
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:29 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Cc: Sarah Marsh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Issue to Add Following King Street Development Meeting
Hi Brian,
My hom J backs on to Dodds lane. I just wanted to add that I am very concerned regarding the distance
between the lower part of building and Dodd's lane. I believe the presentation said it was proposed to be adjusted to
less than a meter. This lower part is still quite tall (multiple stories, I think). Dodds lane is very very narrow. A building
setback that small next to such a narrow lane means that this building is extremely close to my home. I do not approve
of reducing the minimum building setback for this lot.
She/her pronouns
Cell:
Page 229 of 256
Brian Bateman
pronm '
Sent: Friday, October EL2021 11:53 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 900 King St W Meeting Feedback
Thanks tothe City ofKitchener for putting onthe meeting . This development looks promising and the City and the
development team were very informative and engaging.
Some feedback I have about this development is that it doesn't include 3+ bedroom units. This isunfortunate asthis
limits options to families that want to live and grow in the heart of the city,rather than inthe suburbs. | understand it
would reduce the overall number of units, but it would help increase socioeconomic and community diversity. It would
also help limit the pressure required on the already scarce greenfield development lands.
I'd also like toprovide some feedback onthe meeting structure. | liked the overall meeting format, but felt there wasn't
enough time inthe breakout sessions. At the same time, it was a challenge in the breakout session I was in because the
session got dominated by one or two topics that didn't allow for a breadth of information to be had/shared, It was,
however, a good idea to have the different folks from the different areas rotate through each room. | hope you can run
this format again.
All the best,
Page 230 of 256
Brian Bateman
1111 1
From: ~ ' /
Sent: Wednesday, August 25,2OZ1 12:28 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: Re 900 and 890 King St W development
Thanks for responding, Brian, but I don't see a link in the email.
Robert
DnMonday, August 23.2O21.1O:1Q:38a.m.EDT, Brian Bateman <bhan.babamen@Ukitchane/.ue>wrote:
Apologies for the delay hnresponding toyour email ae|was away last week onholidays. Torespond, here's olink tothe
City's website that provides information on the KW Hospital/Mid-Town Secondary Plan proposed updates and status. For
further informotion, please feel free to contact Tina Ma|one-VVright. Project Manager.
From ^ . ..
Sent Saturday' August 14'2O21 Pm1
To: Brian Bateman <Brien.Bateman @kitohenerca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re, Re: Re QOO and 880 King 8tVVdevelopment
Page 231 of 256
Yes, they will. There will be further opportunity for engagement. City will host a meeting sometime in mid -Sept. My
understanding the developer is removing that building in order to remediate the site. The property is contaminated due to
an old gas station.
Brian
From:
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 2:45 PM
To: Brian Bateman < Brian. Bateman Qkitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re 900 and 890 King St W development
Hi Brian. Sure that would be great. And if I have objections to the material that I see presented, will it still be heard? With
the current demolition of the building I feel like approval is being assumed.
Also with the building next door on Pine St at King, 18 Pine to be precise, I have noticed that it has been quietly vacated.
Am I to assume something similar is happening there? If so, I feel like that should be in the relevant disclosure of this
process.
Thanks
On Friday, July 30, 2021, 01:47:48 p.m. EDT, Brian Bateman <brian.bateman()kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi
Thanks for the email and I am sorry you were unable to attend the meeting. I will be posting the presentation on the City's
website very soon that you can view. That may address most of the questions you have below. If not, perhaps I can call
you to discuss sometime next week.
Brian
From:
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 12:00 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re 900 and 890 King St W development
Page 232 of 256
Hi Brian. I am the property owner at ! I ,y ', I was unable to attend the public meeting on July 28 regarding this
proposal due to work engagements that were booKea oefore that letter was even drafted. I am the property directly beside
the proposed development.
First off, the letter from you states a 25 -storey development. The sign at the exterior of the property says 26 -storey. Can
you please clarify?
It is my belief that the existing zoning allows up to 8 storeys. Is this correct? If so, why is there so much of a variation
between the existing allowable use?
There has never been a high rise allowed on this side of King St. in midtown. Why is this being considered?
As a property owner, I don't know if it's appropriate to have a 26 -storey building right next to my two storey building and
many other similar sized buildings in the neighbourhood.
Also, why is the subject property being currently dismantled when nothing has been approved?
Can you please provide insight on these items?
Thank you
Page 233 of 256
a
V»
u
I
W19
CL
0,
,0
X@)
m 8 C:
E r,4 m
w N E
GCI2
(n Ln M
0.0
co
rl%
C3 C",4
U
fu
Ln A
In
N
N
0
4- CL
L.
Ra
0
.c
guy u
4 (D 2
0.u
0
t4
" 00
c:
E
NE
0
o M" u
AISM
r
of 256
. .. ...
.
I
W19
CL
0,
,0
X@)
m 8 C:
E r,4 m
w N E
GCI2
(n Ln M
0.0
co
rl%
C3 C",4
U
fu
Ln A
In
N
N
0
4- CL
L.
Ra
0
.c
guy u
4 (D 2
0.u
0
t4
" 00
c:
E
NE
0
o M" u
AISM
r
of 256
Brian Bateman
From: Kate Wills xkwiUs@mhbcp|an.cnm>
Sent: Friday, August 20,2O21211PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 890-900 King Street- Update from Neighbourhood Public Meeting
Good Afternoon,
We are emailing to advise you that we are working on our summary from the neighbourhood meeting and hope to
provide you a copy of the presentation along with a summary of all questions and responses by the end of August. This
summary will include responses from the project consu|tantswhVvverenotpadofthepandatthefirstNe|ghbVurhVod
Meeting held onJuly 28, 2021.
We would also like to advise that second Neighbourhood Information Meeting is planned for September 2021.
Thank you.
MHBCPlanning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture
Follow us: | Linkedin | Eacebook | Iwitter | Vimeo
Thbcon municofioxloif) tcndcdaoieybxIII namedaddemsmO(a)a"Umay mmohxmWfoil I Ila I is, pfivii('gad.cmrdnmhai.oNemiisaaxenp[ I r�m
disdosurr, Nuw�ive/�)lnon@jannm.phvdrgn.pmteuUonnrWhenv|saiomnd(� UyouummV1he.pleosaedv|aaua
immad|�-ddyaoUdeflNoNixomdi*iUlno1madiog.copyingo/omvaNNOk1o�nyone
Page 235 of 256
Questions and concerns
1) 1 notice that the developer is 'Edmonton' based. Is Cantiro building this 25 storey building at King and Pine for
the City of Kitchener (CofK) to become the landlords or will all the rents be collected by Cantiro and CofK will get
business taxes only?
How does this work?
2) From the CofK's own explanation of Floor Space Ratio (FSR) i.e. building floor area (BFA) divided by lot area (LA),
it is impossible to get a 'whole number answer' as the lot is always bigger than the BFA. Unless of course the
calculation is done with 25 x BFA and the lot is 2.5 x BFA (to arrive at the proposed FSR of 10.0.)
Please send me the calculation of FSR specifically for this development.
3) PARKING
If approved this development would have 231_ units with the potential for at least 231 cars, not allowing for 2 car
families.
Bicycle provision:
Firstly, cyclists are extremely rare on KW streets. Whilst I am in favour of encouraging cyclists, most people cycle for
pleasure. For shopping, going to appointments, theatre, cinemas, restaurants and other forms of entertainment most
people use a car.
This will not ease the number of parking spaces required
ION requirements
This development is relevant to the 'PARTS' documentation (PARTS area related to the Central Stations of the ION LRT)
which states a requirement of 0.9 spaces/unit irrespective of size i.e. 208 spaces —10 GRHF spaces (no longer needed) is
still 198, not including ION's requirement of 0.1 space/unit for visitors i.e. an additional 23 spaces.
This would require more spaces than CofK's own By-law requirements.
Car Share Vehicles on-site:
Car sharing on a business site such as the Sun Life parking lot I can almost understand — different shifts, different days —
but residents in a building largely work 9-5 and not on weekends, so how does car sharing work then?
This will not ease the number of spaces required.
In addition, according to one of your own diagrams there are no parking lots with 500m of the site.
In summary, where do you think residents (a possible 100+ that don't have spaces), commercial and visitors will park
when there is no space available in the site's parking — on Pine, which is already congested at times with cars parking for
the medical building; on Mary, where parking is not allowed overnight nor until bpm weeknights.
U„n,d Mround,,, arkin ,;,
Why are the developers only providing 2 below ground levels of parking, when as one the CofK's documents already
acknowledges 'parking is tight' at this site?
What is 'unbundled parking'?
Page 236 of 256
4) With what look like extremely limited softscape* and hardscape areas, where are residents expected to relax
outside and children to play?
The softscape area in this development look as though they're actually the 3 storey podium! Am I right?
a FYI It's almost 2 kilometres to George Lippert Park the closest park to this site.
5) Why did CANTIRO plan such an oversized building in such a low rise area?
Even using the argument that K -W agreed to increasing residential density along the LRT route, Waterloo have added
two new buildings — the Red and the Cortes at Allen — that back on to Mary St. However, they are only 5 storeys high.
6) "Zoning regulations are set low to allow for 'discussion"' — a comment credited to you Brian.
If this is an unwritten/read between the lines understanding between councillors and planners then why are these
regulations written at all?
When the zoning regulations were adopted were they approved by council? Was setting them low `to allow for
discussion' minuted?
"City of Kitchener documents, including official plan and guidelines are out of date" another comment credited to you
Brian, if this is so then
Why are they supplied as supporting documents?
If there are the documents in place, approved by council, then they should be adhered to until updates are approved.
Correct?
7) For future reference, does CofK go all the way down to Union on King St.?
8) This development proposes to allow for 13 units for use by GRH (<6% of the 231 units) — a contribution to the
community. However, more than once we heard this development referred to as 'attainable housing', no longer
'affordable housing' as it was originally proposed? So, what would have been a significant contribution to the
community is no longer being offered. What do CofK council think of this?
9) Several comments/concerns were expressed about the lack of transition between a 5 storey Medical Building
(18 Pine St) or single or 2 storey houses on Mary St and a 25 storey building! Your own 'Tall building guidelines,
supplied as supporting documentation talks about 'transition' building i.e. incremental increases in building
heights which this development certainly is not an example of. Again why is a 25 storey building being built
here, backing on to a mature residential street?
A building within your required FSR, in this case 10 storeys, would be bad enough, but at least it would be in
compliance with existing By-laws
Page 237 of 256
Brian Bateman
From: Kate Wills <kwills@mhbcplan.com}
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 10:40 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 890-900 King Street East - Neighbourhood Information Meeting -
Additional Information and Responses
Good Morning,
As a follow up to the Neighbourhood Meeting held in July 2021, we are pleased to provide you with a link to the
following documents.
https,.�/yvrn�vor,dro box,comfshfv�rsj9bcik o716a�c/AA620-IedG5e185d5zm0-iCin3 „xa�d,1,-Ci
Please find enclosed the following documents for your review:
1. Copy of the presentation from the July 2021 Neighbourhood Information Meeting
2. Preliminary Renderings- as seen from Mary and Dodds Lane
3. Preliminary Building Elevation Package — showing North, South, East and West Elevations
4. Summary of the Questions and Responses posed at the July 2021 Neighbourhood Information Meeting
5. Updated Shadow Study showing hourly intervals
If you are seeking additional information with respect to submitted studies for the proposed development, please use
the attached link to the City's website:
lhttps,:L/app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocsZOpenData/`AMANDADataSets/"Supporting Documents List 623187. df
A second Neighbourhood Meeting has been scheduled by the City for October 6, 2021, at 7:OOpm via zoom. If you have
not registered yet and would like to attend, please contact Lindsey Taylor, Project Manager at the City of Kitchener at
519-741-2200 x9306 or lindse .ta for kitchener.ca.
The plans presented at the meeting tomorrow are the same plans submitted as part of the original application for
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment presented at the Neighbourhood Information Meeting hosted by CANTIRO in July.
The second meeting will give an opportunity to those who were not able to attend in July and will be primary led by the
City of Kitchener.
Thank you.
Kate
INT'll 1:471 " ...� e
MHBCPlanning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture
635 • 1 F 519 576 ! • , i►
Follow us: Webna e�._Ilnkediq Eaoebook � 1 i11e[ 1I Vimeo
Page 238 of 256
June 23, 2021
Dear Resident or property Owner.
RE: Construction Activity at 690-900 King Street West
We are the owners of 890-900 King Street West and are writing in regard to the property
addressed as 890-900 King Street West, located at the comer of ting Street West and Pine
Street. We understand that you have received notice that Planning Applications that have been
submitted to the City of Kitchener in support of a redevelopment proposal on these lands.
In the near future you may notice construction activity on the site, including the demolition of the
existing building and other site works. The property is a known Brownfield site, meaning that
there is existing contamination on the property. This contamination Is a result of previous
activities that occurred on the site prior'to CAAf't"tRO's purchase of the property.
Regardless of the outcome of the Planning Applications, CANTIRO is committed to remediating
the property and removing all contaminated soils. We wanted to reassure the public that this
construction work is related only to the remediation 1clean-up efforts. The proposed
redevelopment is in the early stages and still requires several planning approvals including the
approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-iaw Amendment.
Should you have any questicns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Stewart Fraser, B.Com, M.Pl—
Sfraser@orcantiro. ca
Vice President, Commercial
CANTIRO
Page 239 of 256
Sygiff Bevv rt
l
IKgc.;i' r� R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: March 7, 2022
SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante - Director of Planning 519-741-2200 ext. 7319
PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson — Manager of Development Review 519-741-2200
ext. 7070
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards
DATE OF REPORT: February 17, 2022
REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-096
SUBJECT: Significant Planning Applications Update - Quarterly Report
RECOMMENDATION:
For Information.
BACKGROUND:
Planning staff provide a quarterly update report every March, June, September, and December of
each year of all current significant development applications. It is important to be providing greater
transparency on significant development applications with the community and Council.
REPORT:
Attached to this report, the Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q1 2022) provides a
summary of the current Planning applications under review at the time of the preparation of this
report.
The current significant development applications section includes Subdivision, Official Plan
Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendments that have not received final approval. These are the
bulk of the applications that Planning Staff consult with the community on an application specific
basis. Significant development applications include property specific proposals as well as new
greenfield communities (subdivisions). Additional details on the development applications can be
found using the online mapping tool available at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 240 of 256
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
CONSULT — Significant development application specific engagements are undertaken for Official
Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law, and Subdivision applications. Engagement includes mailing
postcards to property owners and occupants of all buildings within 240 metres of the subject lands,
publishing a newspaper notice when the application is first circulated and when the statutory public
meeting is scheduled, as well as informal community meetings including Neighbourhood Meetings
and/or site walks. A large plain language sign is also posted on the property.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter.
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman — General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q1 2022)
Page 241 of 256
Attachment A — Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q1 2022)
Current Significant Development Applications
(Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment)
WARD 1
528 LANCASTER ST W
Proposal: A development with 5 multiple residential buildings of varying heights (i.e., 26, 20, 20, 16, and 10
storeys), and commercial uses on the ground floor of the 16 -storey building.
File Number: OPA21/010/L/AP Description: The main purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to
re -designate the whole of the lands to Mixed Use and modify the
Specific Policy Area to allow a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of
5.8 and a maximum building height of 83m 26 storeys).
Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA21/015/L/AP Description: The main purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment is
to re -zone the whole of the lands to MIX -2, and to modify the site-
specific provisions to allow an FSR of 5.8, a building height of 83m
(26 storeys), a parking rate of 0.72 spaces per unit, among other
requests for relief.
Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: January 20, 2022
Owner: 528 LANCASTER STREET Applicant:
WEST INC, 550 LANCASTER INC MHBC PLANNING
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on January 20,
2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting.
104 WOOLWICH ST
Proposal: Two 3.5 -storey multiple dwellings (stacked townhouses) with 24 dwelling units each (total of 48
dwelling units).
File Number: OP18/007/W/AP
Description: The owner is requesting a Site -Specific Policy to allow
an FSR of up to 0.9.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA18/009/W/AP
Description: The owner is requesting to change the zoning
from Agricultural (A-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) along with a Site
Specific Provisions to: a) reduce the minimum front yard from 4.5
metres to 1.0 metres, b) eliminate the requirement for Private Patio
Areas for at -grade dwelling units, c) increase the maximum Floor
Space Ratio from 0.6 to 0.9, and d) reduce the required parking from
1.75 spaces per unit to 1.2 spaces per unit.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: 1238455 ONTARIO LIMITED
Applicant: GSP GROUP INC
Update Since Last Quarterly Report:
No update at this time.
Page 242 of 256
507 FREDERICK ST, 40-44-48 BECKER ST
Proposal: An addition to the existing funeral home is proposed with a crematorium, as well as an expanded
parking lot along Becker Street.
File Number: OP17/003/F/GS
Description: To change the land use designation of the three Becker
Street properties from Low Rise Residential to Commercial, and to
add a special policy in the Official Plan to permit a
Crematorium/Cremator as a permitted use.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZC17/010/F/GS
Description: To change the zoning of the three Becker Street
properties from Residential Six (R-6) with Special Use Regulation
362U to COM -2 (General Commercial), and to add special regulation
provisions to all properties to define the front yard (due to multiple
street frontages), permit a reduced Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.17
(a minimum of 0.6 is required), to permit a 0 metre setback from
Becker Street, and to permit 11 off-site parking to be included in the
development, and to add a new Special Use Regulation in the Zoning
By-law to permit a crematorium/cremator on site.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: November 23, 2021
Owner: Henry Walser Funeral
Home Applicant: GSP GROUP INC.
LTD
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the
Neighbourhood Meeting. The
Applicant is updating technical studies to response to comments at the
Neighbourhood Meeting.
New Applications
26 STANLEY AVE & 31 SCHWEITZER ST
Proposal: The Site is proposed to be developed with a residential subdivision consisting of 42 single detached
dwelling lots, 12 semi-detached dwelling lots (total of 24 dwellings) and a 5 -unit street -townhouse block totaling
71 residential units. The Proposed Development will be accessed by a future municipal road connecting to
Stanley Avenue.
File Number: 30T-21201 Description: A residential plan of subdivision consisting of single -
detached, semi-detached, and townhouse dwellings, totaling 72
units.
Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA21/19/S/BB Description: To change the zoning from Residential Four (R-4) and
Residential Five (R-5) to the Low Rise Residential Five (RES -5) Zone
with the a Site -Specific Provision to permit a maximum building
height of 12.5 metres.
Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Brian Bateman Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: Newo Holdings Limited Applicant: GSP Group Inc.
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This is a new application and is in circulation.
Page 243 of 256
WARD 2
1157 WEBER ST E
Proposal: A mixed-use development consisting of a building with a 15 and 18 storey tower with a total of 378
residential dwelling units and ground floor commercial units.
File Number: OPA21/007/W/BB
Description: To change the land use designation from Commercial
Application Type: ZBA
Corridor to Mixed Use with a Special Policy Area.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
Owner: WINDOM KW INC
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA21/010/W/BB
Description: To change the zoning of the lands from Commercial Two
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor with Site Specific regulations
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
Description: The purpose of the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Brian Bateman
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: November 9, 2021
Owner: M K G HOLDING
Applicant: GSP GROUP INC.
CORPORATION
Application Type: ZBA
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the
Neighbourhood Meeting.
accepting and reviewing comments.
42 WINDOM RD
Proposal: A stacked three store
town/multiple dwelling building containing 22 residential units.
File Number: ZBA20/017/W/ES
Description: To remove special regulation provision 744R (maximum
5units) to permit 22 units, FSR increase to 0.75, and a parking
reduction from 1.75 per unit to 0.95 per unit
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Eric Schneider
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: WINDOM KW INC
Applicant: IBI Group
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time.
New Applications
142 FERGUS AVE
Proposal: A 7 storey building consisting of 78 residential units with associated surface and underground
parking.
File Number: OPA22/002/F/BB
Description: To redesignate the property from Low Rise Residential
in the City of Kitchener Official Plan to Medium Rise
Residential with Special Policy Area to permit a maximum FSR of
2.3.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA21/017N/ES
Description: The purpose of the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment
is to rezone the Site to RES -6 Zone with a site specific regulation to
permit a maximum FSR of 2.3, reduced side yard and rear yard
setbacks, and a reduced vehicular parking rate.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Brian Bateman
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: 2467491 ONTARIO INC
Applicant: GSP GROUP INC.
Update Since Last Quarterly Report:
This is a new application and is in circulation.
Page 244 of 256
WARD 3
4396 KING ST E
Proposal: An 8 -storey residential building located on the property at 25 Sportsworld Drive and a high-density,
mixed-use building featuring 18 and 30 storey towers with ground -floor commercial uses on the property at
4396 King Street East, with a total of 616 dwelling units and 1,378 m2 of commercials ace.
File Number: OPA21/009/K/AP Description: The Official Plan Amendment requests to redesignate
the property from Commercial Campus to Mixed Use with a Specific
Policy Area.
Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA21/014/K/AP Description: The applicant proposed to rezone the property from
Commercial Campus (COM -4) to Mixed Use (MIX -3) and establish a
site specific provision to allow a maximum building height of 99
metres (30 storeys), maximum Floor Space Ratio of 6.2, reduced
parking rate of 0.85 spaces per dwelling unit (580 spaces), non-
residential gross floor area reduction, among other matters.
Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: SPORTSWORLD SHOPPING Applicant: GSP GROUP INC.
CENTRE LTD
Update Since Last Quarter) Report: No update at this time.
New Applications
4220 KING ST E & 25 SPORTSWORLD CROSSING RD
Proposal: Three buildings are proposed including a 14 -storey, 158 -unit residential tower oriented towards
Sportsworld Crossing Road, an 18 -storey, 156 -unit residential tower located towards King Street East, and a
14 -storey, 212 -unit residential tower designed in an `L' shape with stepbacks to frame the intersection of King
Street East and Deer Ridge Drive.
File Number: OPA22/003/K/CD Description: To redesignate the Site from Commercial Campus to
Mixed Use to permit the proposed high-density residential mixed-use
building with a maximum Floor Space Ratio FSR of 4.0.
Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA22/005/K/CD Description: To change the zoning to MIX -3 with special regulations
to permit a FSR of 4.0, whereas the Zoning By-law currently limits
the FSR to 2.0 in the MIX -3 zone; to permit a maximum building
height of 18 -storeys (68.6 metres) for the site, whereas the Zoning
By-law permits a maximum of 10 -storeys (32 metres); to permit a
podium with a minimum height of 2 -storeys, whereas the Zoning By-
law requires a minimum height of 3 -storeys; and, to permit a
minimum ground floor building height of 3.5 metres, whereas the
Zoning By-law requires a minimum ground floor building height of 4.5
metres.
Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: The Tricar Group Applicant: GSP GROUP INC.
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This is a new application and is in circulation.
Page 245 of 256
WARD 4
448 NEW DUNDEE RD
Proposal: A condominium development with 24 single detached houses with frontage onto a private
condominium road.
Description: To change the zoning to Residential Six (R-6) to permit
a multiple residential dwelling.
File Number: ZBA20/003/N/AP
Description: the application requests to change the zoning from R-1
Staff Contact: Craig Dumart
Zone (allows single detached dwellings on lots with a min. lot area of
Owner: A & F GREENFIELD HOMES
LTD
4,000 m2 and min. lot width of 30 m2) to R-6 (allows single detached
Update Since Last Quarter) Report: No update at this time.
dwellings on lots with a min. lot area of 235 m2 and min. lot width of
9 m2).
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: November 25, 2021.
Owner: HAYRE PROPERTIES INC
Applicant: GSP Group Inc.
Update Since Last Quarterly Report:
Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the
Neighbourhood Meeting.
86 PINNACLE DR
Proposal: A two storey 16 -unit senior -oriented residential building.
File Number: ZBA19/003/P/KA
Description: To change the zoning to Residential Six (R-6) to permit
a multiple residential dwelling.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: On hold at the request of the Owner
Staff Contact: Craig Dumart
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: Sept. 10, 2019
Owner: A & F GREENFIELD HOMES
LTD
Applicant: IBI Group
Update Since Last Quarter) Report: No update at this time.
Page 246 of 256
WARD 5
161 GEHL PL
Proposal: A new community with up to 235 residential dwelling units and open space blocks.
File Number: OP18/006/G/GS
Description: Proposing amendment to the Rosenberg Secondary
Plan to revise land use designations for various lands to implement
the proposed plan of subdivision.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA18/007/G/GS
Description: The proposed amendment to the Zoning By-law is to
apply new zoning to the lands to implement the Rosenberg
Secondary Plan (also proposed to be amended) to implement the
proposed plan of subdivision.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: 30T-18202
Description: A proposed Plan of Subdivision with up to 235 residential
units and open space blocks.
Application Type: SA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
Application Type: SA
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: N/A
Owner: 2079546 ONTARIO LIMITED
Applicant: SGL PLANNING & DESIGN INC
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time.
1801 BLEAMS RD
Proposal: A new community with 2607 residential units, a school, green space, and parkland.
File Number: OP18/005/B/GS
Description: Proposing amendment to the Rosenberg Secondary
Plan to revise land use designations for various lands to implement
the proposed plan of subdivision.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA18/006/B/GS
Description: The proposed amendment to the Zoning By-law is to
apply new zoning to the lands to implement the Rosenberg
Secondary Plan (also proposed to be amended) to implement the
proposed plan of subdivision.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: 30T-18201
Description: A proposed Plan of Subdivision with up to 2607
residential units, a school, green space, parkland, as well as multiple
residential and mixed-use blocks.
Application Type: SA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: N/A
Owner: 2079546 ONTARIO LIMITED
Applicant: SGL PLANNING & DESIGN INC
Update Since Last Quarterly Report:
No update at this time.
ROCKCLIFFE DR (FREURE SOUTH)
Proposal: A new community with 471 new residential units including single detached, street townhouses &
multiple dwellings. Parkland open sace & stormwater management facilities are also proposed.
File Number: OP16/001/R/KA Description: To change the designation of the easterly portion of land
to high rise residential, designate a future park area as open space,
and to adjust the limits of wooded areas designated as open space.
Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Page 247 of 256
File Number: ZC16/009/R/KA
Description: To change the zoning from Restricted Business Park (B-
2) to residential and natural heritage conservation zones.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: 30T-16201
Description: The plan of subdivision includes single detached, street
townhouses & multiple dwellings along with parkland open space &
stormwater management facilities.
Application Type: SA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: FREURE DEVELOPMENTS
Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD
LIMITED
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. Archeological assessment work continues.
New Applications
1525 BLEAMS RD
Proposal: To demolish the existing pumping station building and create 6 residential lots, which are proposed
to be added to the Mattamy South Estates 30T-08206 subdivision through a subdivision modification.
File Number: ZBA22/005/K/CD Description: To rezone the property to Residential Six (R-6) with site
specific regulations 671 R, 672R, 673R and 674R.
Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Tim Se ler Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: Mattamy (South Estates) Applicant: GSP GROUP INC.
Limited, City of Kitchener
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This is a new application and is in circulation.
Page 248 of 256
WARD 7
1593 HIGHLAND RD W
Proposal: A mixed-use development consisting of a 13 storey building and 16 storey building, with a total of
403 dwelling units, 1,052 square metres of ground floor commercial space, and 2 levels of underground
parking.
File Number: OPA20/001/H/AP Description: The Official Plan currently state that only commercial -
type uses are permitted on the above properties; residential uses are
not permitted. The owner is requesting to change the OP to permit
up to 403 residential dwelling units within buildings containing
commercial uses.
Application Type: OPA Status: This application was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal
in August 2020. The OLT appeal was held from January 24 —
February 3, 2022. No decision has been received.
File Number: ZBA20/004/H/AP Description: The Owner is requesting to permit up to 403 residential
dwelling units within buildings containing commercial uses.
Additional commercial uses are requested. The owner is also
requesting to reduce front, side yard, and rear yard setbacks,
increase lot coverage, and reduce parking requirements.
Application Type: ZBA Status: This application was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal
in August 2020. The OLT appeal was held from January 24 —
February 3, 2022. No decision has been received.
Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: N/A
Owner: M DEVELOPMENTS Applicant: IBI GROUP
KITCHENER INC
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This application was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal in August
2020. The OLT appeal was held from Januar 24 — February 3, 2022. No decision has been received.
Page 249 of 256
WARD 8
660 BELMONT AVE W
Proposal: An eleven storey (39.1 metre) mixed-use building with 910.7 square metres of ground floor
commercial space and 132 residential units (including 92 one bedroom and 40 two-bedroom units). The Owner
is also requesting to purchase a portion of the City -owned Belmont Lane between Belmont Avenue West and
Claremont Avenue.
File Number: OPA20/004/B/JVW Description: The City of Kitchener has received a revised
development proposal and has been advised that an Official Plan
Amendment application is no longer required. The original Official
Plan Amendment application requested to increase the maximum
height to 13 storeys and 49 metres in height.
Application Type: OPA Status: This application will be considered by Kitchener City Council
on February 28, 2022.
File Number: ZBA20/012/B/JVW Description: The Zoning By-law Amendment application is now
requesting site specific zoning regulations for an increased building
height of 11 storey and 39.1 metres (whereas 8 storeys and 25
metres is permitted), a reduced tower setback from the podium of 2.7
metres (whereas 3.0 metres is required), and a reduced podium
height of two storeys (whereas a minimum of three storeys is
required).
Application Type: ZBA Status: This application will be considered by Kitchener City Council
on February 28, 2022.
Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: Dec. 17, 2020 & Feb. 25, 2021
Owner: 660 BELMONT LP INC, City of Applicant: GSP Group Inc.
Kitchener Belmont Lane E.
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: These applications were referred from PSIC held on February 7t" and 9t"
to Kitchener City Council on February 28, 2022.
400 WESTWOOD DR
Proposal: To demolish the existing house and create four new lots for single detached dwellings.
File Number: ZBA21/012/W/ES Description: To rezone the developable portion of the lands to site
specific Residential Four (R-4).
Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Eric Schneider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: January 13, 2022
Owner: NASIR BROMAND, ZAKIA Applicant: IBI GROUP
BROMAN D
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on January 13,
2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting.
Page 250 of 256
WARD 9
146 VICTORIA ST S
Proposal: A multi -tower, mixed use development consisting of a shared mid -rise podium of 4-6 storeys in
height with 3 residential towers atop the podium, with heights of 25, 36, & 38 storeys and containing a total of
1150 residential units and 1770 square
metres of commercials ace.
File Number: OPA21 /011 /V/ES
Description: Proposing a Special Policy Area to increase maximum
floor space ratio to 11.6 to permit a mixed-use development with
commercial on the ground floor and residential above.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
Application Type: OPA
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA21/017/V/ES
Description: To increase maximum floor space ratio to 11. 6 and a
File Number: ZBA21/002/F/DE
maximum building height of 38 storeys and 122 metres to permit a
mixed-use development with commercial on the ground floor and
residential above.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
Application Type: ZBA
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Eric Schneider
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: February 8, 2022
Owner: 1936026 ONTARIO INC
Applicant: GSP GROUP INC.
Update Since Last Quarterly Report:
A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on February 8,
2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant
are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting.
30 FRANCIS ST S
Proposal: A 44 storey mixed-use
building, containing 169m2 ground -level commercial (3 units) and 532
residential units ranging enerall from
35.4m2 to 68m2 in floors ace.
File Number: OPA21/001/F/DE
Description: The Official Plan Amendment requests to permit an
increase in density (allowable floor space ratio) in the Innovation
Downtown District, to permit the proposed 44 storey tower with a FSR
of 18.3.
Application Type: OPA
Status: These applications have been scheduled for consideration at
the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee for March 7, 2022.
File Number: ZBA21/002/F/DE
Description: The Zoning By-law Amendment is requested to permit
the addition of site-specific regulations to the existing D-6 Downtown
zone to permit the development of a 44 -storey building with a FSR of
18.3.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: These applications have been scheduled for consideration at
the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee for March 7, 2022.
Staff Contact:
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: June 2, 2021 & December 14, 2021
Owner: 30 FRANCIS KITCHENER Applicant: GSP Group Inc.
INCORPORATED
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A second Neighbourhood Meeting was held on December 14, 2021.
These applications have been scheduled for consideration at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
for March 7, 2022.
Page 251 of 256
321 COURTLAND AVE E
Proposal: A new mixed-use community with residential, commercial, and employment uses. Three existing
buildings are proposed to remain, including the six storey office building, the large distribution warehouse
building, and the former maintenance garage. The remainder of the buildings are currently being demolished.
The existing buildings will be repurposed for a mix of employment uses. New buildings are proposed to range
from three storeys along Stirling Avenue South, to five -to -seven storeys along Courtland Avenue East, and
between twenty-three and thirty-five storeys along the rail line. In total, approximately 2818 residential units
are proposed in various forms throughout the site.
File Number: OP19/002/C/GS Description: An Official Plan Amendment is requested to implement
new land use permissions for the proposed development. The
existing land use designation for the subject lands is General
Industrial with a site-specific policy in the Mill Courtland Woodside
Park Secondary Plan. An amendment is requested to change the
land use designations to Mixed Use, High Density Multiple
Residential, and Neighbourhood Park.
Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA19/005/C/GS Description: The proposed subdivision application contains two
medium density residential blocks, a high-density residential block, a
medium density mixed use block, a mixed-use employment block, a
park block, a street townhouse block, and two future development
blocks. Road widening blocks are proposed along Courtland Avenue
East. The blocks are arranged along a new proposed road to be
named Olde Fashioned Way, running parallel to Courtland Avenue
East from Palmer Avenue to Borden Avenue South. Palmer Avenue
and Kent Avenue are proposed to be extended through the site to
intersect with the proposed road.
Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: 30T-19201 Description: The Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to implement
the proposed land use designations with corresponding zoning. The
proposed zoning is Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone MU -
2 (a medium intensity mixed use zone that permits residential and
commercial uses), Residential Nine R-9 (a high-rise residential
zone), and Public Park Zone P-1 (a zone that is applied to public park
spaces).
Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: Jul 15, 2019. Planning Staff will be
holding a second digital information meeting to provide an update on
this application as issues are resolved.
Owner: 321 COURTLAND AVE Applicant: GSP Group Inc.
DEVELOPMENTS INC
Update Since Last Quarter) Report: No update at this time.
Page 252 of 256
New Applications
1001 KING ST E & 530-564 CHARLES ST E
Proposal: A 30 storey building that is 92.0 metres in height with 461 square metres of commercial space and
486 residential units.
File Number: OPA21/013/C/KA
File Number: OPA22/001/K/KA
Description: The requested Official Plan Amendment proposes a
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
special policy area to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 8.27.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA22-001/K/KA
Description: The main purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment is
Pola Applicant: MHBC Planning Inc.
to add Special Provisions to the existing High Intensity Mixed Use
This is a new application and is in circulation.
Corridor Zone (MU -3) to permit a maximum floor space ratio of 8.27
instead of 4.0; a dwelling unit to be located at grade (along Charles
Street for live work units) in a mixed use building; and a parking rate
of 0.54 spaces per unit, visitor parking at 4% of required parking, and
to permit parking for a Plaza complex to be 0.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Katie Anderl
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: King -Charles Properties
Applicant:
MHBC PLANNING
Update Since Last Quarterly Report:
This is a new application and is in circulation.
95-101 CEDAR ST S
Proposal: A 24 unit stacked townhouse complex.
File Number: OPA21/013/C/KA
Description: To re -designate lands from Low Rise Conservation to
Low Density Multiple Residential.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA21/022/C/KA
Description: To change the zoning from Residential Drive (R-5) to
Residential Seven R-7 with special regulation provisions.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Katie Anderl
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD
Owner: St George Inc. & St
Group Inc.
Pola Applicant: MHBC Planning Inc.
Update Since Last Quarterly Report:
This is a new application and is in circulation.
Page 253 of 256
WARD 10
276 KING ST E
Proposal: A 7 -storey mixed-use building. Ground floor commercial uses are proposed along with six storeys
of residential above.
File Number: OPA21/008/K/CD
File Number: OPA20/006/K/AP
Description: To increase the Floor Space Ratio to 4.8 from 3.0.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA20/015/K/AP
Description: The property is currently split zoned D-2 (King St) and
Application Type: OPA
D-3 (former house facing Eby St). Numerous changes are required,
mixed-use development for two 23 storey buildings, consisting of 616
but the main changes are to change the zoning of the whole property
File Number: ZBA21/008/K/BB
to D-2, to allow FSR of 4.8 (currently, the max permitted is 2.0 / 0.75),
increased Floor Space Ratio of 7.2 rather than 4.0, reduced rear yard
to allow maximum building height of 28.5 metres (currently, the max
Application Type: ZBA
is 17.4m in D-2 and 9.Om in D-3), and to allow zero parking for the
parking to permit parking at a rate of 0.7 spaces per unit for Multiple
building (currently zero parking is required for commercial, and 29
Staff Contact: Brian Bateman
spaces for residential).
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
PARTNER LTD
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: April 28, 2021
Owner: 276 KING EAST INC
Applicant: GSP GROUP INC.
Update Since Last Quarter) Report:
No update at this time.
890 KING ST W
Proposal: A 25 storey mixed use building with 231 units, 728 m2 of retail/commercial and 108 parking spaces
in a parking structure.
File Number: OPA21/008/K/CD
File Number: OPA21/005/K/BB
Description: This application is seeking an amendment to the K -W
Floor Space Ratio of 7.2 rather than 4.0.
Hospital Neighbourhood Secondary Plan for a site-specific provision
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 10.1 in a Mixed -Use
accepting and reviewing comments.
Corridor Designation as opposed to the maximum of 4.0.
Application Type: OPA
Status: These applications have been scheduled for consideration at
mixed-use development for two 23 storey buildings, consisting of 616
the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee for March 7, 2022.
File Number: ZBA21/008/K/BB
Description: The application is requesting a special zoning provision
increased Floor Space Ratio of 7.2 rather than 4.0, reduced rear yard
for relief from setbacks, parking, and density requirements.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: These applications have been scheduled for consideration at
parking to permit parking at a rate of 0.7 spaces per unit for Multiple
the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee for March 7, 2022.
Staff Contact: Brian Bateman
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: October 6, 2021
Owner: CANTIRO KING GENERAL
Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD
PARTNER LTD
Update Since Last Quarterly Report:
These applications have been scheduled for consideration at the
Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee for March 7, 2022.
1668 KING ST E
Proposal: Two 23 storey buildings,
consisting of 616 residential units,
File Number: OPA21/008/K/CD
Description: The Official Plan Amendment requests an increased
Floor Space Ratio of 7.2 rather than 4.0.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA21/013/K/CD
Description: The Zoning By-law Amendment is requested to allow a
mixed-use development for two 23 storey buildings, consisting of 616
residential units, 204 square metres of commercial space with an
increased Floor Space Ratio of 7.2 rather than 4.0, reduced rear yard
setback of 12.0 metres rather than 14.0 metres, and reduced on-site
parking to permit parking at a rate of 0.7 spaces per unit for Multiple
Page 254 of 256
22 WEBER ST W
Dwelling Units greater than 51.0 square metres in size, rather than
1.0 spaces per unit.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Craig Dumart
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: June 17, 2021
Owner: 2806399 ONTARIO INC
Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD
Update Since Last Quarter) Report:
No update at this time.
22 WEBER ST W
Proposal: A 19 -storey multiple residential building with 162 units, including 25 barrier free units. A total of 24
parking spaces are proposed at grade.
comprised of three buildings, ranging in height from six to 26 storeys. The proposed development will provide
File Number: OPA20/005/1N/JVW
Description: The applicant is now proposing to amend the
File Number: OPA21/012/0/CD
designation to High Density Commercial Residential with a Special
Policy Area in order to permit a floor space ratio FSR of 7.8.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been appealed to the Ontario Land
Tribunal (formerly LPAT). A fourth digital case management
conference is scheduled for April 4, 2022 at 10:00am online and can
be accessed as https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/613665325.
File Number: ZBA20/013/W/JVW
Description: The subject lands are currently zoned Commercial
Residential Three (CR -3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is
File Number: ZBA21/018/O/CD
proposing the same base zone with site specific special regulations
to permit; an increase in height to 19 storeys, an increase in Floor
Space Ratio to 7.8, To require a minimum ground floor fagade height
of 4.5m, to reduce the required minimum landscaped area required
from 10% to 8%, to reduce front and rear yard setbacks, and to
reduce the required on-site parking to 24 spaces, including 8 visitor
parking spaces.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been appealed to the Ontario Land
Tribunal (formerly LPAT). A fourth digital case management
conference is scheduled for April 4, 2022 at 10:00am online and can
be accessed as https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/613665325.
Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: Sept. 8, 2021 & March 3, 2022.
Owner: 30 DUKE STREET LIMITED
Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD
Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A fourth Case Management Conference is scheduled for April 4, 2022.
The HIA will be presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on March 1, 2022. A second Neighbourhood
Meeting is scheduled for March 3, 2022.
New Applications
20 OTTAWA ST NORTH
Proposal: To redevelop the subject
property as a mixed-use commercial and residential development
comprised of three buildings, ranging in height from six to 26 storeys. The proposed development will provide
a total of 464 units with 306 parking spaces
and vehicular access to Ottawa Street via a private driveway.
File Number: OPA21/012/0/CD
Description: The subject property is designated Neighbourhood
Mixed Use Centres in the King Street East Secondary Plan, which
forms part of the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The land use policies
of the Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centres designation permits
multiple unit residential use with a floor space ratio of 1.0. The
proposed development is proposed to have a floors ace ratio of 3.0.
Application Type: OPA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
File Number: ZBA21/018/O/CD
Description: The proposed amendment is to change the current
Neighbourhood Shopping Centre (C-2) to the Commercial
Page 255 of 256
Page 256 of 256
Residential Four Zone (CR -4) to permit dwelling units as well as a
variety of commercial uses.
Application Type: ZBA
Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are
accepting and reviewing comments.
Staff Contact: Craig Dumart
Neighbourhood Meeting Date: February 24, 2022
Owner: 20 Ottawa GP INC.
Applicant: MHBC Planning Ltd.
Update Since Last Quarter)
Report: This is a new a plication and is in circulation.
Page 256 of 256