HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-062 - OPA-21-001-F-DE - ZBA-21-002-F-DE - 30 Francis Street South - 30 Francis Kitchener IncorporatedStaffeeport
IST` � Ni,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. 1,
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.
01 t `
05
IPA
z 05 �
SUBJECT AREA
4P
s
11Z A Cl
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 7t" 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
CHARLES STREET WEST - 0
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 Designation
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/bonusing 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 Building 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 7th 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
Of
w0
z o
Of Of O w E O
I- N Z Of 0
r- w O 0 af
Z W WN
��0 ZOf w -iLu w O
Z�> � J W p 2 w
O W O Q Q Z N Z
N z 2 W
LHOa2 UH QO 0w z W
a UNzco Of HNHQNX W Z
°° �H0z W 0 Zw0U)Z< x 0NN
HU— �— U Q O
Q oOf< �wzON��z0� ZW �2
cn» U�O�wcnO(n(nz >w0
In Lu m U) D CD O W J N U o D 0 W W N LL (n W
QW af (.5Q W of J W O� 0 z J J J
LU 00 O(WiIOfa z5o�Q(n=QZZ w U<<<
Q � W= Q z Z w o 0 of p o ofQ z d z z z
H w w—= - �Wg JLuLL, O cnwww
U QWw� ao>�QU�w2j W o = z000
LU p�a0 z0♦-LL��o LLJ wcncncn
>Q> U 2 O U w LL O > Q> w 2 a w w w
m W W 0> 2 0 J U d' O U> Z Z U` N Z (h Z O d' d' d'
mwl0~z L? (l? 000o( uL? Co
P U) QQLLH�Q moo0000NNdofofof
/C �CF)
�LO
N
N �
LO
0
U
0
N � O
W
Q
w
1
LU
Z o
LU
w
1
O
N
U Q
�1V/v � �
J 0 x
LLNE
Y O
o LU
LO
CL
(/)D-
VO
0
�
z
Q
Q 0
o
a
0� Z
L_
U)0
W
O
co
N
oo
D
W
c
LL
Q
N
LL
LLI
w
~
O
O
z
c7
Of V Z
g
N
O
z
z
LLI
Q
N
La
w0a0
�ZXN
Z
0
m
Q
0w
U= W W
N
n
O
W
WWa2
Z
W
oo
NcnOY
I
�
Z
W
'�+Q
V a
o
Lu
2
Z
+0 o
�
ITcol
JI=
Q
W
OU)
1
Q
U� O
�Nm
Z
w
IL
g
LI
Q
>
V
Q
1
Z
LL
LO
0
U
0
N � O
W
Q
w
1
LU
Z o
LU
w
1
O
N
U Q
�1V/v � �
J 0 x
LLNE
Y O
o LU
LO
CL
(/)D-
VO
0
�
z
Q
Q 0
o
a
0� Z
L_
U)0
W
O
co
N
oo
D
W
LL
Q
N
LL
LLI
w
~
O
O
z
c7
Of V Z
g
N
O
z
z
LLI
Q
N
La
w0a0
�ZXN
Z
0
m
Q
0w
U= W W
N
n
O
W
WWa2
Z
W
oo
NcnOY
I
�
Z
W
'�+Q
V a
o
Lu
2
Z
+0 o
�
ITcol
JI=
Q
W
OU)
1
Q
U� O
�Nm
Z
w
IL
g
LI
Q
>
V
Q
1
Z
LL
°o
o,
N
r
1
b
o
0
N
N
D
N
w
N � O
W
Q
p
1
LU
Z o
LU
z
1
O
U Q
�1V/v � �
Z
Y O
o LU
LO
CL
(/)D-
VO
Z
Q
�
UQ
Q 0
o
C
0� Z
L_
U)0
r
LU
Z o
LU
c)
1
O
U Q
�1V/v � �
Z
Y O
U)
U
LO
CL
(/)D-
VO
Z
Q
�,
(c
Q 0
LL
C
0� Z
L_
O
O
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
fora development in your neighbourhood
30 Francis Street South
VAA
Concept drawing
0;
44 Storeys Increased
Density
Parkland
Enhancements
F
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/
pla n 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
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
expensive of:
Housing for which the purchase price results in annual
accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross
$368,000
annual household income for low and moderate income
households
Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent
below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the
$487,637
regional market area
`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@IBIGroup.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.
3W
3X
2%
28.0
V
230
�E7
a,3
20
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
=13
230
�E7
a,3
20
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/CPA
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
0
LEVEL 7
Choose an item.
Page 56 of 256
BUILDING
1:
ABOVE
:1 :■■REMOVED
{
FOR CLARfTY
OF PODIUM
®�LEVELSENSORS
I
lilil_'lil ��
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
0.00 SGI6fE WAfXMG LOOP a
' "�
rAcvc,m
•
(t
�L
6z
FRANCIS
DEVELOPMENT
GPA-
lnuu,mm
O -
UE
ARE510ENTIAL
STTOREY TOYER
—
57?IINRS
4
1E
4,
k Y
}¢
r�eu1
Y
I�
{i
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:
ShadowAnolysis has been revised, including period for Winter Solstice (December2l).
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
I �27
\2 6
:D-
i
05
L RCP..D
`I-
rL
-O EiG�
ABOVE
5
D FOR
�li00
LU
k
I �27
\2 6
:D-
i
05
rL
ABOVE
W
D FOR
�li00
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@kitchener.ca
Q WU Q
From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 20218:52 AM
To: Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>
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.dumarta-kitchener.ca
1, flyl Un 41@
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/kitchener-
waterloo/university-of-waterloo-new-health-facility-kitchener-1.5782101 ;!!E19 NBbORQ!QJ-
ISbgMU8Q6fmsyyklZANcOvQZzQFXJaXOFscMA-mgLd2ipKUw4GMP5RuovQk6xtiiiEpY$ )
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. (—I 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-
ISbgMU8Q6fmsyykjZANcOvQZzQFXJaXOFscMA-mgLd2ipKUw4GMP5RuovQk6xbTYEf6g$ )
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
year.
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,
Great job 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
31-Mm"111"Ir B�
From: Jeff Willmer
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 20213:19 PM
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] IN8 44 -storey proposal
Hello Craig, I hope you are keeping well.
2
2J,
.4
�fy
31-Mm"111"Ir B�
From: Jeff Willmer
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 20213:19 PM
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] IN8 44 -storey proposal
Hello Craig, I hope you are keeping well.
2
Page 72 of 256
.4
�_�
4
� ffi
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
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
Page 78 of 256
tz
CHARLEN 57REEN new
Onmirl
Page 79 of 256
Sent from my Pad
v W -.-M
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
2
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
y=� _._11V
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
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
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
Igoe (00
0'11".
From: Gail Pool
Sent: Monday, June 7, 202111:16 AM
To: Niall Lobley <Niall.Loblev@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.edwards@kitchener.ca
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_!
s 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
e ire ere
infor kltchener.ca
519-741-2345
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 13TY 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(o�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
�41�
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.png> <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
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: Tara Zhang
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 6:13 PM
To: Dayna Edwards
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Today: 30 Francis St. South - Neighbourhood Information
Meeting on Zoom
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Dayna,
Please see below.
Ta ra
From: MARY PAPPERT
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 her
reply and comments. I am available to talk to her by telephone if she is available.
Thank you
Wednesday, June 2, 2021, 2:38:28 p.m. EDT,
Hi Mary,
Tara Zhang <tara.zhang@kitchener.ca> wrote:
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 <m�
Sent: Wednesday, June
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 mnwmw�
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
Z 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
061 0
I.
Out
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
pam 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 corrin months future opportunities for engagement. g hs with respect to
In the meantime, a copy of thepresentation, 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
k;
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) I Planning Division I 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
k�
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
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
IN&evelopments
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,
Darryl Firsten
President
E%Developrnents
44 Peter Street,
St. Clements, ON NOB 2M0
Phone: 519-954-8868
Fax: 519-954-9208
Page 131 of 256
Indwell
CREATING AFFORDABLE
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
ST. PETER'S LUTHERAN CHURCH
49 Queen Street North, Kitchener
PROJECT DETAILS
• Addresses the affordable housing crisis in the Region
of Waterloo
• Creates 40 studio and one -bedroom apartments
including 8 barrier free units; plus community space
and commercial kitchen
• High quality construction, built to Passive House
standards
BUDGET
Canadian Centre for
Christian Charities
ACCREDITED MEMBER
000-004
Opening 2024
Indwell is a Christian charity that creates
affordable housing communities for people
seeking health, wellness and belonging.
• Deeply affordable units with integrated health
supports and services for tenants
• Indwell professional property management and
permanent affordability
• Part of a regional strategy that includes a
minimum of five Indwell communities
throughout Waterloo Region and at least
250 units
z
15
L W
a
88 - 1-1-
Hinos
I
�. x
ep
Z
(L <
E CL
U) U)
. . . ..........
. ... . .
88 - 1-1-
Hinos
I
�. x
ep
Z
(L <
E CL
U) U)
N
N
0
ZW O
of P & N
MZ a
W y U)
0�
�a
z
-
N
N
0
ZW O
of P & N
MZ a
W y U)
0�
�a
saa
- gjQoo <mow
aa-
_- rn
O W & N
0�
L - M �a
I
0
0
do
WH
J
w
w
Z
D
0
Qi
NU) N
" ®R
T i C-4
q..
w
xw a
w m3 .za4 zao
saa
Hm
�— —
o.I
XN\
azo
gam
III till
II I
co
e�
m i N
e
a
pa,n^
V/
J
a €
ego J _
-
_
Oro d
-1 11-11
G �
I
m.
a
c�
-
g
- i
G �
a
c�
i
- i
0
Z
LU
x 0
mww. <w opo w
= oz« z<�-o
a..§
_ o LU 3 3 _ _
- §ow - - .. . .. . . ..
.....
g. a8 -
§<ot aa�� 0 z 3 _
W 0
W El ®® D F El El El El
7 O O O O O D 7 �j �j
EIm E W L VIII
�I� IIS �I�
- - no - S IcoJ lci i oiice. co
—o_
0
A
zzo w
Q 1.
a Y d t 3 0
4 W 3 3 - _
o
�: _- _ _ -Na . f3
H.WLU, El M El El El El El El
O O O O O O O O
� �
a 9I1 X19 1A 1A �I$ 1A ilil hN 111 114 il& IIB III X14 FIs ale ale QIP ilk ilk il9 ilk ilk �I
I�I� �I� �I� �I �I� �I� �I� �I� �
o� 91'� 91� 91® 91® 91e 91e J�I� JAI J�I�
I��I�Iwllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
0OGS-o oo oo a
n0 _b0 SAO. O. 0. ' lie
rr 48 II
m I
O
- =
III III�III�III
'=1�Ig�•�—SII FYI �Y,��� �I��Ie�
Big -Y •I�A SMI ••�Y �•�YI :Y !Y•��'� I�I ��YI•�•• — ��� � �I � 1� �J
o
O
�--d
a=
V:
t
Ai
ME AA m
14
7
I,
EL w
MOM
. I
WPL�- rA
e 'e
�s .y
S:
•Nr
a
"W"WI
i
Nit
r
Ew
%
OF
a If 0
It T.
7 t!
IS r It
7 ii GL
z t! I
t 7,