Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2022-05-16Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Agenda Monday, May 16, 2022, 7:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Electronic Meeting Beginning March 1, 2022, the City of Kitchener has aligned with provincial changes to COVID-19 restrictions and City Hall is now open for in person services, but appointments are still being encouraged. The City remains committed to safety of our patrons and staff and continue to facilitate electronic meeting participation for members of the public. Those people interested in participating in this meeting can register to participate electronically by completing the online delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation @kitchener.ca. For those who are interested in accessing the meeting live -stream video it is available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. Please refer to the delegations section on the agenda below for registration deadlines. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair: Councillor D. Chapman Vice -Chair: Councillor P. Singh Pages 1. Commencement 2. Consent Items The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as under this section. 2.1. None. 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. Delegates must register by 5:00 p.m. on May 16, 2022, in order to participate electronically. 3.1. None at this time. 4. Discussion Items 4.1. None. 5. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act. If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City of Kitchener before the proposed applications are considered, the person or public body may not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal. 5.1. Official Plan Amendment OPA/21/012/0/CD - 60 m 3 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/21/018/O/CD - 20 Ottawa Street North - 20 Ottawa GP Inc. - DSD -2022-195 (Staff will provide a 10 minute presentation on this matter.) 6. Information Items 6.1. None. 7. Adjournment Sarah Goldrup Committee Administrator Page 2 of 130 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: May 16, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Bustamante, Rosa - Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Dumart, Craig — Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7073 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: April 13, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-195 SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment OPA/21/012/0/CD Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/21/018/0/CD 20 Ottawa Street North 20 Ottawa GP Inc. RECOMMENDATION: That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA/21/012/0/CD for 20 Ottawa GP Inc. requesting a land use designation change from `Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre with Special Policy Area 3' to `Mixed Use Corridor' to permit a mixed use development on the lands specified and illustrated on Schedule `A', be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -2022-195 as Appendix `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/018/0/CD for 20 Ottawa GP Inc. be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1, attached to Report DSD -2022-195 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 ZBA21/018/0/CD. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the property located at 20 Ottawa Street North. It is planning staffs recommendation that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be approved. Community engagement included: • circulation of a preliminary notice letter to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site; installation of a large billboard notice sign on the property; follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; Neighbourhood Meeting held on February 24, 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 130 • postcard 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; • notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on April 22, 2022. This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the property addressed as 20 Ottawa Street North is proposing to change the Official Plan designation from `Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre with Special Policy Area 3' to `Mixed Use Corridor' in the King Street East Secondary Plan, and to change the zoning from `Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) with Special Use Provision 2U' in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 with a Site Specific Provision to further regulate parking; to regulate building heights adjacent to low rise residential zones; to increase the visual barrier requirement; allow for dwelling units and commercial uses to both be located on the ground floor; and to apply a Holding Provision to require remediation of site contamination and an updated noise study. Staff recommend that the applications be approved. BACKGROUND: 20 Ottawa GP Inc. has made applications to the City of Kitchener for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment proposing to change the land use designation and zoning of the lands at 20 Ottawa Street to permit the lands to be developed with a mixed use development consisting of a 26 storey tower with a 5 storey podium, and two mid rise buildings that are proposed to be 4 and 6 storeys in height. The proposed development includes surface parking and parking located underground and internal to the buildings. The lands are designated `Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre with Special Policy Area 3' in the City of Kitchener King Street East Secondary Plan and zoned `Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) with Special Use Provision 2U' in Zoning By- law 85-1. The existing zoning permissions include: • Dwelling units and a wide range of commercial and institutional uses are permitted uses; • The maximum building height is 15.0 metres, except that the height may be increased beyond the maximum of 15.0 metres provided that the building is located so that its distance from any lot line is equal to or greater than its building height; • Requirement for 1.25 parking space for each dwelling unit over 51 square metres of floor area; • 0.165 parking spaces for each dwelling unit having a floor area of 51.0 square metres or less (capped at 40% of the units); and • Special Use Provision 2U permits the sale, rental, service, storage or repair of motor vehicles and major recreational equipment. Site Context The subject lands are addressed as 20 Ottawa Street North and are located near the intersection of King Street East and Ottawa Street North. The subject property has a lot area of 1.23 hectares (3.04 acres) with 147 metres of frontage along Ottawa Street North. 20 Ottawa Street North is currently occupied by a commercial building and a large surface parking area which was formerly used as a car dealership. The surrounding neighbourhood consists of a variety of uses including commercial buildings, medium -rise residential uses, single detached dwellings, low-rise multiple dwelling buildings, and institutional buildings. Directly to the north of the property is a commercial plaza, to the south is a commercial property, and across the street to the west are commercial and institutional properties. Uses on lands to the east of the subject lands include single detached dwellings and Page 4 of 130 institutional uses (fronting on Onward Avenue). The subject lands are located within 500 metres of the Borden ION LRT station stop, which is located at the intersection of Charles Street East and Borden Avenue South. REPORT: 7 wF YZ_ z_ gFn ST � � F ¢O �O O cRFScF SUBJEC P ARE�4 O` STF S STF �O CO C Figure 1 - Location Map: 20 Ottawa Street North The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with a mixed-use development consisting of a 26 storey tower with a 5 storey podium, and two mid rise buildings which are 4 and 6 storeys in height. The proposed development consists of 476 residential units, 15 of which are proposed as three bedroom, 2 storey live -work units located along Ottawa Street, with a roof top terrace on the second level, and 315 parking spaces located both underground and internal to the building and on the surface. The proposed development includes 3 buildings, one of which is a 26 storey tower with a 5 storey podium located along Ottawa Street North. The two mid rise buildings which are 6 and 4 storeys in height are proposed to be located behind the tower, at the rear of the property closest to existing low-rise residential uses. The 6 storey building is proposed to be located to the adjacent Religious Institution property and directly abuts a surface parking lot whereas the 4 storey mid rise Page 5 of 130 is located adjacent to low rise residential single detached dwellings located on Onward Avenue. The principal entrance to the development is proposed to be located directly on the Ottawa Street North frontage, providing access on a Regional road. The proposed development has situated the 26 storey tower and massing towards the north east portion of the site along Ottawa Street which is approximately 90 metres from the low rise residential properties. The proposed mid rise buildings located at the rear of the subject lands will provide a compatible transition to the low rise residential neighbourhood. Through the processing of the applications, a revised development proposal was prepared. The original development proposed 464 dwelling units (1 and 2 bedrooms only) with 343 parking spaces and one floor of underground parking, internal spaces and surface parking spaces. In response to comments provided by Planning staff and the public, the applicant has amended the proposed development and is now proposing a mix of residential unit types with 2 storey three bedroom live - work units situated along Ottawa Street North. A large second floor amenity area is now proposed which will provide for adequate amenity space for future residents of the development and will not put further pressures on nearby existing parks and open spaces. Table 1 below provides a comparison of the development concepts and Figures 2 and 3 show the revised development concept site plan and a rendering of the revised development proposal. Table 1. Development Concept Comparison Table Page 6 of 130 Original Development Concept Revised Development Concept Number of Units 464 residential units 476 residential units Parking Spaces 343 parking spaces 315 parking spaces Parking Rate 0.74 spaces per unit. 0.74 spaces per unit 7% for visitor 0.165 spaces for dwelling units having a floor area of 51.0 square metres or less 7% for visitor Underground 230 Parking Spaces 163 Parking Spaces Parking Levels Floor Space Ratio 3.0 3.0 Internal parking 21 Parking Spaces 103 Parking Spaces spaces Surface Parking 92 Parking Spaces 49 Parking Spaces Spaces Purpose built 2 Not provided 15 storey three bedroom live -work units Unit Types 1 bedroom units (290) 1 bedroom units 1 bedroom + den units (112) 1 bedroom + den units 2 bedroom units (59) 2 bedroom units Page 6 of 130 Figure 2 — Revised Development Concept Site Plan Page 7 of 130 (15) 3 bedroom units (designed for live -work) Second level Not Provided 2635 square metres (28,362 sq. ft) Amenity Area of landscaped amenity space Podium Design 2 Sections 3 Sections broken up by pocket LANDSCAPE parks Building Heights Building A: 26 storeys with 4 storey Building A: 26 storeys with 5 storey podium podium Building B: 6 storeys Building B: 6 storeys Building C: 6 storeys Building C: 4 storeys Figure 2 — Revised Development Concept Site Plan Page 7 of 130 L6WER LANDSCAPE AMENITY BUILDING C 1 :; C'S. LANDSCAPE L) AMENITY BUILDING B 16 STOREYS] RAISED LANDSCAPE POCKET AMENITY CouRTYARD PARK 8 BIK'YCLE PARKING ACCESS POCKET POCKET PARK 8 PARK A COVERED COVERED BUILDING A PARXING PARKING TOW ER AccEss BIpILDING A BUILDING A nccEss 2, TCREYaJ PODIUM, PODIUM (5 STC7REYS) (5 S -O KEYS I Figure 2 — Revised Development Concept Site Plan Page 7 of 130 L ONE, y0000 s }4l i✓ F I� e Figure 3 — Revised Development Rendering The revised development concept includes changes in direct response to public and staff comments. The revised proposed development includes a broader mix of unit types (including fifteen larger 3 bedroom units, which are designed as purpose built two storey live -work units to allow for residents to run offices or commercial uses from their homes). The podium height has been increased by one floor, and the massing of the podium has been broken up into three sections with pocket parks and landscaping which will enhance the public realm. Furthermore, Building C which is located at the rear of the property adjacent to low rise residential single detached dwellings has decreased the building height from 6 storeys to 4 storeys. To facilitate the redevelopment of 20 Ottawa Street North with the proposed development concept, an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment is proposed to change the land use designation and zoning of the subject lands. The lands are currently designated `Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre with Special Policy Area 3' in the City of Kitchener King Street East Secondary Plan and zoned `Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) with Special Use Provision 2U' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The owner is proposing to change the land use designation to `Mixed Use Corridor' in the King Street East Secondary Plan and the zoning to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone' (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 777R and Holding Provision 92H' in Zoning By-law 85-1, to permit residential uses and commercial uses on the ground floor; reduce the required parking; require an increased visual barrier; and regulate building height adjacent to low rise residential zones. 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. Page 8 of 130 Planning Analysis: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25. Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; g) The minimization of waste; h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; p) The appropriate location of growth and development; q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it directs how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable, healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus, rapid transit, and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed multiple dwelling development represents an attainable form of market-based housing. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a multiple dwelling development that is compatible with the surrounding community, helps manage growth, is transit supportive and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Page 9 of 130 Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. 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. Policy 2.2.4 requires that planning be prioritized for MTSAs on priority transit corridors, including zoning in a manner that implements the policies of the Growth Plan. MTSAs on priority transit corridors will be planned for a minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail transit or bus rapid transit. The Region of Waterloo's ION is a form of light rail transit and the ION stations are Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) that are required to achieve the minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area, and within a Major Transit Station Area. The lands are identified as a MTSA in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for the Borden Page 10 of 130 station. The Region of Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review project and as part of that work, revised MTSA boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council and these lands are within the Borden Station MTSA. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City achieve density targets in the MTSA. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. The proposed development is also proposing to include several unit types with direct access to Ottawa Street, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. The Region of Waterloo has identified that the subject lands are located within potential intensification corridor as part of the Reginal Official Plan review and are an appropriate location for prime intensification. Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council and these lands are within the MTSA. The Region of Waterloo have indicated they have no objections to the proposed application or to higher density within the MTSA area. (Appendix `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. 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. The subject lands are designated `Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre" (Map 10) in the 1994 Official Plan with Special Policy Area No. 3 applying to subject lands. The existing Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre land use designation permits a full range of commercial and institutional uses and Special Policy Area No. 3 allows for the sale, rental, service, storage and repair of motor vehicles. The applicant is proposing to change the land use designation to `Mixed Use Corridor' in the King Street East Secondary Plan. The Mixed Use Corridor land use designation provide residential redevelopment opportunities together with appropriate commercial and institutional uses that primarily serve adjacent residential neighbourhoods. Over time it is intended that the Mixed Use Corridors shall intensify and provide a balanced distribution of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses. A maximum floor space ratio of 4.0 is permitted Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Major Transit Station Areas, Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within a Major Transit Station Area. The Page 11 of 130 planned function of the Major Transit Station Areas is to provide densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit -oriented. Policies also require that development applications in Major Transit Station Areas give consideration to the Transit -Oriented Development policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the Official Plan. Generally, the Transit -Oriented Development policies support a compact urban form, that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience. These policies also support developments which foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit and rapid transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that not only complies with the City's policies for a Major Transit Station Area but also contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally -friendly city. PARTS Rockway Plan The subject lands are located within the PARTS Rockway Plan which is a guiding document that made recommendations for land uses within and around rapid transit station stops. The PARTS Rockway Plan made recommendation for amendments to the Secondary Plans within the MTSA, which have not yet been implemented. Some of the primary recommendations are to encourage the development of underutilized sites with higher density live -work environments and to increase housing supply with multi -unit residential while protecting existing stable neighbourhoods. The proposed development provides for a range of housing options and the proposed amendment is in keeping with the PARTS Rockway vision for development within and around the ION stops. Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) 20 Ottawa Street North is within the King East Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) area. A statutory public meeting was held December 9, 2019 regarding draft amendments to the plan. Under the proposed Neighbourhood Planning Review, the proposed Official Plan designation for the site is Commercial and the proposed zoning is Major Transit Station Area Commercial (COM -5) which proposed to allow commercial uses and permit a maximum floor space ratio of 6.0. The NPR project is under review and updated draft land use designations and zoning will be considered later this year. Urban Desian 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, specifically: Streetscape; Safety; Universal Design; Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and Scale Design. To address these policies, an Urban Design Brief and Design Report 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 ground floor units along the entirety of Ottawa street are proposed to incorporate balconies and raised patio. These units are purpose built 2 storey live -work units that will allow for the conversion of the ground floor into commercial uses in the future. These units will have direct pedestrian connections to the sidewalk to animate the street. Page 12 of 130 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. 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 development that will be developed at a scale that is compatible with the existing and planned built form for the surrounding neighbourhood. The mid rise buildings are oriented towards the rear of the subject lands which provide a transition from the tower located along Ottawa Street to existing low rise residential dwellings located on Onward Avenue. The 5 storey podium along Ottawa Street is broken up into three sections with pocket parks and includes raised patios and enhanced landscaping to enhance the public realm. 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 towards Ottawa Street to minimize overlook to adjacent properties. 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, with respect 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 generally suitable. The submitted Preliminary Wind Study indicates less than ideal wind conditions near the south entrances of Building B2 due to flow channeling. Wind control features were recommended in the report to improve pedestrian comfort at this specific area. A full Wind Assessment will be reviewed at the site plan application stage. 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 130 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. More specifically, the proposed development meets the onsite and offsite separation distance requirements of the 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 the Borden ION station stop. The building has excellent access to cycling networks, including existing on and off-street cycling facilities and is located in close proximity to the downtown cycling grid, and the Iron Horse Trail. The location of the subject lands, in the context of the City's integrated transportation system, supports the proposal for transit -oriented development on the subject lands. Policy 3.C.2.22 states that until such time as Station Area Plans are completed and this Plan is amended accordingly, in the interim, any development application submitted within a Major Transit Station Area will be reviewed generally in accordance with the Transit -Oriented Development Policies included in Section 13.C.3.12 The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications support a more dense residential development. The location of the proposed buildings, secured through the proposed site-specific provisions, will result in a built form that fosters walkability within a pedestrian - friendly environment that allows walking to be safe, comfortable, barrier -free and a convenient form of urban travel. At future site plan approval processes, the design of the buildings will have to feature a high quality public realm to enhance the identity of the area and create gathering points for social interaction, community events and other activities. Additionally, secured and visitor bicycle parking is required as part of the Zoning By-law. 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. The wide range of units will meet appeal to a variety of household needs. 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; Page 14 of 130 c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; d) the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and, e) transit -supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active modes of transportation such as cycling and walking. Development applications are required to demonstrate that the proposal meets the sustainable development policies of the Plan and that sustainable development design standards are achieved. 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. Official Plan Conclusions The Official Plan Amendment application requests that the land use designation as shown on Map 10 — King Street East Secondary Plan in the 1994 Official Plan be changed from `Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre with Special Policy 3' to `Mixed Use Corridor'. Based on the above policy and planning analysis, staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents good planning and recommends that the proposed Official Plan Amendment be approved in the form shown in Appendix "A". Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are zoned `Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone' (C-2) with Special Use Provision 2U in Zoning By-law 85-1. The existing zoning permits a range of commercial and institutional uses with a maximum building height of 15.0 metres, except that the building height may be increased beyond the maximum of 15.0 metres provided that the building is located so that its distance from any lot line is equal to or greater than its building height. The existing zoning also requires 1.25 parking spaces for each dwelling unit over 51 square metres of floor area and 0.165 spaces for each dwelling unit having a floor area of 51.0 square metres or less (capped at 40% of the units). The applicant has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law 85-1 to change the zoning from `Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone' (C-2) with Special Use Provision 2U' to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Regulation Provision 777R and Holding Provision 92H" 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 777R to Zoning By-law 85-1. The proposed Special Regulation Provision is to allow for residential and commercial uses to both be located on the ground floor, regulate building heights adjacent to low rise residential zones, increase the visual barrier requirement and reduce the required parking rate. Staff offer the following comments with respect to the proposed Special Regulation Provision 777R: a) Dwelling units shall be permitted to be located on the ground floor with non-residential uses. The purpose of this regulation is to allow for both residential uses and non-residential uses to be located on the ground floors of all the buildings on the subject land. The current zoning of the property does not allow for both. It only allows for dwelling units to be located on the ground floor if the Page 15 of 130 development is entirely residential but does not if there are non-residential uses. The proposed regulation will allow for commercial uses on the ground floor of the live -work units and to facilitate the conversion of ground floor units in the future to either residential or non-residential uses. b) That parking be provided at a rate of 0.74 spaces per dwelling unit. 7% of the required parking spaces shall be shared for visitor parking and non-residential uses. Bicycle and electric vehicle parking are to be provided in accordance with By-law 2019-051. The purpose of this regulation is to provide for a parking rate which is appropriate for the development as well as require adequate bicycle parking spaces and future electric vehicle charging parking spaces. The proposed ratio results in a parking rate of 0.74 spaces per dwelling unit (inclusive of visitor spaces). The subject lands will have adequate access to public transit and pedestrian/cycling networks and adequate bike storage will be provided within the development for residents. Planning and Transportation Services staff is of the opinion that the parking rate is appropriate for the subject lands. c) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 15.0 metres, for any portion of the building 5 or more storeys in height, abutting any Residentially Zoned Property. The purpose of this regulation is to regulate the building height adjacent to low rise residential properties and to ensure that there is an appropriate transition in height to the adjacent low rise residential properties. This regulation aligns with the building height transition requirement in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. d) The minimum yard setback abutting any Institutional zone property shall be 4.5 metres The purpose of this regulation is to provide an adequate setback and area for landscaping and private patios for units that are located adjacent to the institutional property and adjacent surface parking lot. e) The minimum and maximum height of the required visual barrier shall be 2.44 metres. The purpose of this regulation is to increase the required visual barrier height from 1.8 metres to 2.44 metres to reduce visual impacts of the proposed development and screen the surface parking lot from adjacent low rise residential properties. This is directly in response to community comments. Staff offer the following comments with respect to Holding Provision 92H: Official Plan policies require 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 `MU -3' 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 92H Planning staff are recommending the following holding provision as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment: 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 and Climate Change. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt Page 16 of 130 of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to their satisfaction. No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Road Traffic 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 and adjacent to the subject 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 measures 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 change the zoning of the subject lands to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' with Site Specific Provision 777R and Holding Provision 92H represents good planning as it will facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a mixed-use development that is compatible with the existing 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. 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 Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment was undertaken in December 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 Report Prepared by: MHBC Planning, November, 2021 • Planning Justification Report Addendum Letter Prepared by: MHBC Planning, April, 2022 • Design Report Prepared by: Edge Architects, April, 2022 • Shadow Study Prepared by: Edge Architects, January, 2022 Page 17 of 130 • Urban Design Brief Prepare by: MHBC Planning, 2021 • Vegetation Management Report Prepared by: Hill Design Studio, September 2021S • Existing Conditions and Grading Plan Prepared by: MTE, April, 2021 • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report Prepared by: MTE, October, 2021 • Hydrogeological Investigation and Dewatering Report Prepared by: MTE, September, 2021 • Geotechnical Report Prepared by: MTE, October, 2021 • Transportation Impact Study Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions, October, 2021 • Sustainability Statement Prepared by: MHBC Planning, January, 2022 • Wind Study Prepared by: RWDI, August, 2021 • Noise Impact Study Prepared by: Acoustic Engineering, May, 2021 Community Input & Staff Responses Staff received written responses from 25 residents with respect to the proposed development. These are included in Appendix `D'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on February 24, 2022. 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 Concerns the proposed A Traffic Impact Study was submitted and reviewed by development will create traffic that Regional Transportation staff who did not identify any existing roads can not handle. major traffic concerns as a result of the proposed development. In direct response to residents' comments, Building C 6 storeys is too tall to adjacent low (which directly abuts residential dwellings fronting Onward rise residential neighbourhood Avenue) has been decreased in height from 6 storeys to 4 storeys., A Shadow Study has been submitted. Staff have reviewed Loss of day light the study and are satisfied the shadow study meets the minimum requirements, as related to shadow impacts and will have minimal impacts on adjacent properties. Page 18 of 130 Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 20 Ottawa Street North to be developed with a mixed-use development. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Page 19 of 130 Parkland dedication will be further explored through the site plan approval process. In addition to the possibility of parkland being attained through the site plan process to Concerns with lack of park space alleviate pressures on existing public park spaces, the within the neighbourhood. proposed development includes 2,635 square metres (28,362 sq. ft) of landscaped amenity space located on the second level as well as at grade pocket parks and amenity spaces for future residents. The 26 storey tower has been oriented along Ottawa Street North and is located approximately 90 metres away from the low rise residential properties located on Onward The building is too tall and residents Avenue. Mid -rise buildings which are 4 and 6 storeys in have concerns with privacy into rear height will be located so as to provide a transition from the yards. tower to the low-rise residential neighbourhood. In addition, the site-specific regulation will be required for a 8 foot high (2.44 metre) visual barrier (fence) to screen the surface parking lot from adjacent properties and provide for some privacy. Trail connection should be provided The feasibility of developing a formal trail connection and from Onward Avenue to the site. public parkland will be further explored through the site plan application process. A Parking Justification Study was submitted and reviewed by Transportation Services staff who support the proposed Not enough parking is being parking rate of 0.74 spaces per dwelling unit. Unbundled provided. parking is proposed as well as 0.5 Class A bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit will be required as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measure. 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 fifteen, 3 bedroom and two bedroom units. units. Engineering and Water Utilities staff have confirmed there Concerns that there is not adequate is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on services for the site. the subject lands and adequate water services available and that they have no concerns with the proposed development. The City's Stormwater Management Policy requires the Concerns the development will management of pre-existing to post development create flooding onto adjacent conditions on the site. Additionally the first 12.5 mm of properties. rain needs to retained on site. This will need to be demonstrated that it can meet the City's Stormwater Management Policy at the site plan approval stage. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 20 Ottawa Street North to be developed with a mixed-use development. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Page 19 of 130 Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. It is recommended that the applications be approved. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. A large notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in December of 2021. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising 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 Meetings. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on April 22, 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 December 7, 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 25 members of the public, 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 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Regional Official Plan, 2015 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 1994 • PARTS Rockway 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 Official Plan Amendment Appendix B — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Appendix C — Newspaper Notice Appendix D — Department and Agency Comments Appendix E — Public Comments Appendix F — Development Concept Design Report Page 20 of 130 AMENDMENT NO. X TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 20 Ottawa Street North Page 21 of 130 AMENDMENT NO. X TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 20 Ottawa Street North INDEX SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee of May 16, 2022 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council Page 22 of 130 AMENDMENT NO. 15 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 —TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. X to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener (1994). This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive. SECTION 2 — PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to amend: • Map 10 — Secondary Plan - King Street East Neighbourhood Plan For Land Use by redesignating lands, municipally addressed as 20 Ottawa Street North from `Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre with Special Policy Area 3' to `Mixed Use Corridor'. • Amend Part 3, Section 13.2.3 by deleting Policy 13.2.3.3. SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT Planning Analysis: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25. Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; g) The minimization of waste; h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; p) The appropriate location of growth and development; q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it directs how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. Provincial Policy Statement, 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 Page 23 of 130 accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus, rapid transit, and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed multiple dwelling development represents an attainable form of market-based housing. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a multiple dwelling development that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. 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; Page 24 of 130 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. Policy 2.2.4 requires that planning be prioritized for MTSAs on priority transit corridors, including zoning in a manner that implements the policies of the Growth Plan. MTSAs on priority transit corridors will be planned for a minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail transit or bus rapid transit. The Region of Waterloo's ION is a form of light rail transit and the ION stations are Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) that are required to achieve the minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area, and within a Major Transit Station Area. The lands are identified as a MTSA in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for the Borden station. The Region of Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review project and as part of that work, revised MTSA boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council and these lands are within the Borden Station MTSA. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City achieve density targets in the MTSA. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. The proposed development is also proposed to include several unit types with direct access to Ottawa Street, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. The Region of Waterloo has identified that the subject lands are located within potential intensification corridor as part of the Reginal Official Plan review and are an appropriate location for prime intensification. Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council and these lands are within the MTSA. The Region of Waterloo have indicated they have no objections to the proposed application or to higher density within the MTSA area. (Appendix `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. Page 25 of 130 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. The subject lands are designated `Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre" (Map 10) in the 1994 Official Plan with Special Policy Area No. 3 applying to subject lands. The existing Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre land use designation permits a full range of commercial and institutional uses and Special Policy Area No. 3 allows for the sale, rental, service, storage and repair of motor vehicles. The applicant is proposing to change the land use designation to `Mixed Use Corridor' in the King Street East Secondary Plan. The Mixed Use Corridor land use designation provide residential redevelopment opportunities together with appropriate commercial and institutional uses that primarily serve adjacent residential neighbourhoods. Over time it is intended that the Mixed Use Corridors shall intensify and provide a balanced distribution of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses. A maximum floor space Ratio of 4.0 is permitted Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Major Transit Station Areas, Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within a Major Transit Station Area. The planned function of the Major Transit Station Areas is to provide densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian - friendly and transit -oriented. Policies also require that development applications in Major Transit Station Areas give consideration to the Transit -Oriented Development policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the Official Plan. Generally, the Transit -Oriented Development policies support a compact urban form, that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience. These policies also support developments which foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit and rapid transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that not only complies with the City's policies for a Major Transit Station Area but also contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally -friendly city. PARTS Rockway Plan Page 26 of 130 The subject lands are located within the PARTS Rockway Plan which is a guiding document that made recommendations for land uses within and around rapid transit station stops. The PARTS Rockway Plan made recommendation for amendments to the Secondary Plans within the MTSA, which have not yet been implemented. Some of the primary recommendations is to encourage the development of underutilize sites with higher density live -work environments and to increase housing supply with multi -unit residential while protecting existing stable neighbourhoods. The proposed development provides for a range of housing options and the proposed amendment is in keeping with the PARTS Rockway vision for development within and around the ION stops. Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) 20 Ottawa Street North is within the King East neighbourhood planning review area. A statutory public meeting was held December 9, 2019 regarding draft amendments to the plan. Under the proposed neighbourhood planning review the proposed Official Plan designation for the site is Commercial and the proposed zoning is Major Transit Station Area Commercial (COM -5) which proposed to allow commercial uses and permit a maximum floor space ratio of 6.0. The NPR project is under review and updated draft land use designations and zoning will be considered later this year. 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 and Design Report 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 ground floor units along the entirety of Ottawa street are proposed to incorporate balconies and raised patio. These units are purpose built 2 storey live -work units that will allow for the conversion of the ground floor into commercial uses in the future. These units will have direct pedestrian connections to the sidewalk to animate the street. 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. 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. Page 27 of 130 Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale — The subject site is designed to have a development that will be developed at a scale that is compatible with the existing and planned built form for the surrounding neighbourhood. The mid rise buildings are oriented towards the rear of the subject lands which provide a transition from the tower located along Ottawa street to existing low rise residential dwellings located on Onward Avenue. The 5 storey podium along Ottawa street is broken up into three sections with pocket parks and includes raised patios and enhanced landscaping to enhance the public realm. Tower Desian 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 towards Ottawa Street to minimize overlook to adjacent properties. 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 generally suitable. The submitted Preliminary Wind Study indicates less than ideal wind conditions near the south entrances of Building B2 due to flow channeling. Wind control features were recommended in the report to improve pedestrian comfort at this specific area. A full Wind Assessment will be reviewed at the site plan application stage. 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; • 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. Page 28 of 130 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. More specifically, the proposed development meets the onsite and offsite separation distance requirements of the 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 the Borden ION station stop. The building has excellent access to cycling networks, including existing on and off-street cycling facilities, is in close proximity to the downtown cycling grid, and the Iron Horse Trail. The location of the subject lands, in the context of the City's integrated transportation system, supports the proposal for transit -oriented development on the subject lands. Policy 3.C.2.22 states that until such time as Station Area Plans are completed and this Plan is amended accordingly, in the interim, any development application submitted within a Major Transit Station Area will be reviewed generally in accordance with the Transit -Oriented Development Policies included in Section 13.C.3.12 The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications support a more dense residential development. The location of the proposed buildings, secured through the proposed site-specific provisions, will result in a built form that fosters walkability within a pedestrian -friendly environment that allows walking to be safe, comfortable, barrier -free and a convenient form of urban travel. At future site plan approval processes, the design of the buildings will have to feature a high quality public realm to enhance the identity of the area and create gathering points for social interaction, community events and other activities. Additionally, secured and visitor bicycle parking is required as part of the Zoning By-law. Housina 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. The wide range of units will meet appeal to a variety of household needs. 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; Page 29 of 130 b) environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and construction practices; c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; d) the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and, e) transit -supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active modes of transportation such as cycling and walking. Development applications are required to demonstrate that the proposal meets the sustainable development policies of the Plan and that sustainable development design standards are achieved. 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. Conclusion The amendment as proposed herein is consistent with the objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement, conform with Policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and conforms to the Regional Official Plan and policies of the City's Official Plan. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents good planning, and recommends that the proposed Official Plan Amendment be approved. SECTION 4—THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan (1994) is hereby amended as follows a) Amend Map No. 10 — Secondary Plan - King Street East Neighbourhood Plan For Land Use by designating the lands, municipally addressed as 20 Ottawa Street North, as `Mixed Use Corridor' instead of `Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre with Special Policy Area 3', as shown on the attached Schedule `A'; b) Amend Part 3 — Section 13.2.3 by deleting Policy 13.2.3.3. 10 Page 30 of 130 APPENDIX 1: Notice of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (May 16, 2022) NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING � fora development in your neighbourhood%\ 0 Ottawa Street North.I'I'I i Have Y ur Voi a Heard! Concept drawing 0 26 storeys F� {1� 'f Increased Density AA13hk e� :;: 15 Mixed . Use Building Date: May 1 f, 2022 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, find meeting details or to appear as a delegation, visit: kitch ener*cam eeti n,s To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit www.kitcheneLca/ planningapplications or contact: Craig Durnark, Senior Ptanner 519.741.2210 x 7073 craig.durnart akitchener.ca Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications will be considered to permit a mixed used development with three buildings, 4, 6 and 26 storeys in height with reduced parking and permission to locate dwelling units and commercial uses both on the ground floor. Page 31 of 130 APPENDIX 2: Minutes of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (May 16, 2022) 12 Page 32 of 130 APPENDIX 3 - Minutes of the Meeting of City Council (May 30, 2022) 13 Page 33 of 130 a� 0L U o I Z Z <1z -Fu U Q i O J CL J N N O -- of CLcoCD ° o a� E J T- a= N N U _ -a O rO LLo i V a N 0 N (0 O d a x � N 0 - cu I LL�az c a V (B N L N Q LL w p ° a� a� a� ami ° °cu m cu 0Q o Q m LU LU o2U D C9 0 C) o -0ZZod0 Z o cLU W co O L, En D n ° L c Q% HZZ� T T E ami �° �° cn ca d U U QZ Q-a�i D Z Y Y D D co 0 0 o co E .x Z LU 0a m o 0 0 °� o x Q o 0- ami c� c o- o w 2 o = J J J J Z 2 Z O m (n d U) Q LL < Q F - w 1:1: _ ';; ' _I c Z 3 Y z I:J:J Q :1:1: !r'.... 1 I J J a } O Cf, r LL z ,i �O ci3 _ w t 0 CN LLJ \r, rr\rte H p w O J pa, 6i F- LLJ W Q � t, 0 04 —_-- e� Ce w O w n a z p of z o O w tr O Q w of j W 0 Q D J W J O E � J U CC Z Z p LLo W 0 0 Z U U ~ Z p O W N Q m J J Q L,LJ � Z U) Q N C Q Z LLI D w Q LLI LO V D Z � >= p Z LLI W Z Z U) J Z V ]pLLJ �Q}� X LLI ON�Z�LLI ON zz W Q JLLI L L I W �wrj W z O O((D U m U ON 0 CD z U)) z H 0 p> X L>Li (7 O w Ly (7 g O Z W Fn N LL LL 0 (n W � Z � )U��? w UQQQQQoO?a L`�Qz W Q N La 0� z U) w w w w w �= Of O w pLLI co of o0af co a > 0= W p Z p p p p p N LLl a 0 CC p W Z O W j OU 0 w g = a w w w w w �z 2 0 c7nLLw ~ �g N CL 2 Z ^ H J LLI N N z C? LL, Q CC CC CC CC CC J — N z 2 Q U W Z i 0 zs O N v 0 CO 1- 0 >L U 0 U O U LL � Q U - 2 N 2 N CL Cr Cr Lr Cr � m z z 0 N U O Y LU IL L w p Z 0 U) W ZLLI of 04 LLI �Q U) z Z w IL LO O Q w p �0\(s LL � /� yv> NO M N N f N N LO _ � LLI 'F CC Z Poa, N Z z p I- U w� a LL]r`LLI U LC I- CC z O < M C OU ago LLQ C:)J (7 d 0 z w LO ZW IL Z r LL O NU) O c z -i _ 0 p —W CL N _ CL CL _ F F WO OZ W F L O J O 002 Of) -Q HO U U p NN i Z W L U } � a H >> O O CC C W m Z:) O m wU w OO LU [C d O F J - Q H a H Qz-QZ [C O U C w L LULi H Z W LLI U-� LLI U � - m 00 = U 2. 2 W p�z�?UC7�U0 [C O W J Z U) U Ln W Q �WOf0 Z= 00~z Z= p NO Z CC [ U) QQLLN HN Q m UN U U C e� Ce w O w n a z p of z o O w tr O Q w of j W 0 Q D J W J O E � J U CC Z Z p LLo W 0 0 Z U U ~ Z p O W N Q m J J Q L,LJ � Z U) Q N C Q Z LLI D w Q LLI LO V D Z � >= p Z LLI W Z Z U) J Z V ]pLLJ �Q}� X LLI ON�Z�LLI ON zz W Q JLLI L L I W �wrj W z O O((D U m U ON 0 CD z U)) z H 0 p> X L>Li (7 O w Ly (7 g O Z W Fn N LL LL 0 (n W � Z � )U��? w UQQQQQoO?a L`�Qz W Q N La 0� z U) w w w w w �= Of O w pLLI co of o0af co a > 0= W p Z p p p p p N LLl a 0 CC p W Z O W j OU 0 w g = a w w w w w �z 2 0 c7nLLw ~ �g N CL 2 Z ^ H J LLI N N z C? LL, Q CC CC CC CC CC J — N z 2 Q U W Z i 0 zs O N v 0 CO 1- 0 >L U 0 U O U LL � Q U - 2 N 2 N CL Cr Cr Lr Cr � m z z 0 N U O Y LU IL L w p Z 0 U) W ZLLI of 04 LLI �Q U) z Z w IL LO O Q w p �0\(s LL � /� yv> NO M N N f N N LO _ � .�., U Z Z Poa, N 0 O O U N _ a W r ops 0CC ) M C ago LLQ C:)J _ d �h CM LO Q LO o W w Q N o U) .�., U Z Z Poa, 0 < Q N a< ago G O 0 O NryA CM LO CN N 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 — 20 Ottawa GP Inc. — 20 Ottawa Street North) 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 143 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 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 Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) with Special Use Provision 2U to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 777R and Holding Provision 92H. 2. Schedule Number 143 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 777 thereto as follows: "777. Notwithstanding Sections 5.11, 6.1.2, and 55.2.1 of this By-law within the lands zoned MU -3 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Schedule Number 143 of Appendix `A' the following special regulations shall apply: a) Dwelling units shall be permitted to be located on the ground floor with non residential uses. b) On-site Parking shall be provided as follows: Page 36 of 130 i) Parking for multiple dwellings shall be provided at a rate of 0.74 for units over 51 square metres. ii) Visitor Parking shall be sharable with non-residential uses and be provided at a rate of 7% of the required parking. c) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 15.0 metres for any portion of the building 5 or more storeys abutting any Residentially Zoned Property. d) The minimum yard setback abutting any Institutional zone property shall be 4.5 metres. e) The minimum and maximum height of the required visual barrier shall be 2.44 metres." 4. Appendix "F" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 92H thereto as follows: "92. Notwithstanding Section 17 of this Bylaw, within the lands zoned MU -3 and shown as being affected by this Subsection on Schedule 143 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 and Climate Change. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to their satisfaction. ii) No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Road Traffic, 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." Page 37 of 130 5. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _, (20 Ottawa Street North) comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of 2022. Mayor Clerk Page 38 of 130 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING fora development in your neighbourhood 20 Ottawa Street North, Have Your Voice Heard! Concept drawing 26 storeys Increased Mixed Use Density Building Date: May 16, 2022 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, find meeting details or to appear as a delegation, visit: 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 Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications will be considered to permit a mixed used development with three buildings, 4, 6 and 26 storeys in height with reduced parking and permission to locate dwelling units and commercial uses both on the ground floor. Page 39 of 130 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form Address: 20 Ottawa Street North Application: OPA/ZBA Comments Of: City of Kitchener— Urban Design- Planning Commenter's Name: Pegah Fahimian Email: Pegah.fahimian@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7342 Date of Comments: January 20, 2022 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ® No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: • Cover Letter • Urban Design Brief- MHBC Planning • Wind Study — RWDI • Shadow Study- Edge Architects, Apr 2022 • Design Report, Edge Architects, Apr 2022 2. Site -Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the updated documentation (as listed above) to support a Zoning By -Law Amendment to allow a mixed-use development with three buildings consisting of 464 residential units and an increased floor space ratio of 3.0 rather than 1.0. There are some design modifications that must be addressed for the site plan application process to ensure the project fits in the context of the neighborhood as detailed below: • While the concept of residential intensification on this site is positive and many previous staff comments have been incorporated into the proposal, some design modifications must be addressed in the site plan application to create a development proposal that is well designed and appropriate for this site and neighbourhood. • The tall building design guidelines are an excellent compatibility test for proposals exceeding their zoning permissions. The proposal meets the tall building guidelj'nes, specifically with regards to separation. • The proposed corner treatment is to be further enhanced to create visual interest at the street edge. This could be achieved by special massing and architectural treatments on both streets to give prominence along the frontages and visually distinguish these sites. • The tower should step back from its base a minimum of 3m along any street -facing elevations. • The building facades fronting on Ottawa St should contain an appropriate amount of glazing and articulation, particularly along the lower 5m where the building addresses the sidewalk. • This project should play a significant role in reinforcing the character of King Street. There is a need for public art at the corner, well integrated into the architecture of the building, and suggest the following as options. o Public Art (sculpture, mural, digital) o Living wall (interior or exterior, but visible/prominent) A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 1 of 3 Page 40 of 130 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form o Enhanced architecture at the corner o Community -oriented space o Enhanced exterior lighting (coloured, programmable, pattered, etc.) • The city is supportive of the approach to use balconies to add a pattern to the tower, to articulate the facades and break down tower massing. Refining these balconies to create the best possible architectural expression for the tower will be critical. Podium levels along Ottawa Streets would benefit from balconies for residential units, adding natural surveillance and a greater sense of street life. • The proposed towers should have unique top features that are architecturally excellent, highly visible and make a positive contribution to the image of Kitchener developing skyline. • Towers are highly visible elements of the urban environment and must meet Kitchener's highest standards for design excellence. The building should be designed and clad with different materials and colors so that they read as distinct from one another. • Reconfirmation to be provided that the proposal maintained access to at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight to nearby residential, sidewalks and open spaces as part of the site plan approval process. • All at -grade parking should be wrapped with active uses. • Provide multiple above grade rooftops and podium amenities with a minimum of (2 sq.m X # units) + (2.5 sq.m x # bedrooms - # units) = outdoor amenity space. The amenity space • Provide natural surveillance by employing high percentages of glazing, active uses at ground level and incorporate more units with windows and balconies on the main facade with views onto the street • Provide materiality and texture shifts at the podium and across the towers and incorporate variations in tower setbacks from the base to distinguish the tower form from the podium. 3. Comments on Submitted Documents The following comments should be addressed at the time of site plan. Urban Design Brief, MHBC Planning • Floor plan including the parking layouts, retail spaces and unit layouts to be provided • Provide details on the proposed pedestrian realm and how does the provided physical separation between the buildings contributes to the public realm and streetscape? • Additional details to be provided for the pedestrian entrance, architectural style, elements, detailing and material selection. • Details of the streetscape are to be provided. Any streetscape elements proposed are to be reviewed and approved. • The property is located very close to the major transit station area; therefore the site should be designed to prioritize people, pedestrians and cyclists. • Balconies may be staggered in a creative pattern to lighten the structure and provide private outdoor space for the units. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 2 of 3 Page 41 of 130 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form • The proposed tower may be expressed with alternating solid cladding around balconies and glass curtain walls around living areas. • Microclimate analysis— separation analysis that verifies how the proposed design meets the Tall building design guidelines. • Wind assessment and Noise feasibility study required for outdoor amenity and the pedestrian realm. • The underground parking structure should have sufficient setback from the property lines to accommodate the necessary soil volume to support required large-statured, high canopy trees. Perimeter trees should not be located on the garage slab roof. Within the site, required tree plantings can be accommodated on the garage slab but will still require standard minimum soil volumes. • The area between the building's face and the property line should be well integrated with the street and public realm to deliver high quality and seamless private, semi -private and public spaces. • Updated urban design brief to be provided. • Wind Study - Pedestrian Level Wind Assessment- RWDI • Updated Wind study to be provided for the revised layout. The submitted Preliminary Wind Study indicates less than ideal wind conditions near the south entrances of Building B2 due to flow channeling. Wind control features were recommended in the report to improve pedestrian comfort at these areas. A full Wind Assessment should be provided for review at the site plan application stage. A revised design proposal should be developed that addresses the wind impacts outlined in the submitted wind study. A wind tunnel study should be provided at the site plan application stage to quantify these conditions and to refine any conceptual wind mitigation measures presented herein. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 3 of 3 Page 42 of 130 March 17, 2022 Erica Bayley, P. Eng. Senior Project Manager Paradigm Transportation Solutions 5A-150 Pinebush Road Cambridge, ON N1 R 8J8 Dear Ms. Bayley: PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: C14-60/04 URBAN ZEHR GROUP Re: OPA 21/012/0/CD and ZBA 21/018/0/CD, 20 Ottawa LP (Zehr Group), 20 Ottawa Street North, City of Kitchener — Transportation Study Review Comments Region of Waterloo staff have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) entitled "20 Ottawa Street North — Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study, and Access and Circulation Review" dated October 2021 in support of the proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA 21/12/O/CD) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA 21/18/0/CD) for 20 Ottawa Street North, Kitchener, and provide the following comments: • While the study does not recommend any transportation related improvements to Regional Road 04 (Ottawa Street North), please be advised that if further re- development of existing adjacent land parcels occur in the future, Region of Waterloo staff may require a review/analysis of the overall vehicular access design to Ottawa Street North. This future analysis may necessitate the movement of any vehicular access locations to align directly across from Rosedale Avenue, and may require improvements to the Municipal Road network at the cost of the developer. The study has used the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 signal report for the subject intersection analysis tables. As noted in the Region of Waterloo Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (updated July 2014) the intersection analysis tables should be completed using only the Synchro Lanes, Volumes and Timing Report. For the Ottawa Street North & King Street East intersection, the study identifies that left -turn queues for certain movements exceed available left -turn lane storage. They study does not include any consideration for extending the left -turn lanes. The study should note what storage would be required to accommodate Document Number: 3975918 Page 43 of 130 the 95th percentile queue lengths, and provide recommendations to address the storage deficiencies. • For the Ottawa Street North & Weber Street East intersection, the study identifies that left -turn queues for certain movements exceed available left -turn lane storage. They study does not include any consideration for extending the left -turn lanes. The study should note what storage would be required to accommodate the 95th percentile queue lengths, and provide recommendations to address the storage deficiencies. Region of Waterloo/Grand River Transit staff also provide the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) advisory comments: • Regional staff generally support the reduced parking supplies and provision of an unbundled parking plan and surplus bike parking. • Regional staff recommend the applicant provide a better pedestrian connection from the proposed development to Crescent Avenue. This is an important pedestrian link between the Ottawa Street North transit corridor and the surrounding neighbourhood. • Subsidized Transit Passes were listed in the study as a proposed TDM measure, and the applicant should be made aware of the following important information if these measures are to be considered as a condition of a parking reduction/approval: • This initiative requires a commitment from the owner/applicant to manage, administer, and fund the full cost of monthly transit passes for residents. If this is to be considered by the applicant, further consultation and confirmation of expectations between all three parties (Applicant, City, Region (GRT) is required as soon as possible. • Car share was included under Alternative Strategies. The most established car - sharing program in the Region of Waterloo is Communauto. They offer a unique programming to "launch" a car share vehicle through a business agreement with the property owner. • The applicant should contact Janet MacLeod 'macleod communauto.ca to learn more about opportunities available locally. A memo to address the TIS related Regional comments must be provided. Overall the Region of Waterloo has no major concerns with the conclusions and recommendations of the study and recommend that the OPA/ZBA application move forward. Under future Site Plan application(s), Region of Waterloo staff will work with the developer to complete any necessary applications. Page 44 of 130 Yours Truly, Jason Wi leswort g9 h, C.E.T. Transportation Planner (519) 505-4536 CC: Steven Ryder, C.E.T. — City of Kitchener Craig Dumart, MCIP, RPP — City of Kitchener Dave Aston, MCIP, RPP — MHBC Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP — Region of Waterloo Greg Proctor, C.E.T. — Region of Waterloo Paula Sawicki, P. Eng. — Region of Waterloo Page 45 of 130 Region of Waterloo Craig Dumart Senior Planner (Urban Design) City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Dumart, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 226-752-8622 File: D 17/2/21012 C14/2/21018 February 10, 2022 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/012 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/018 20 Ottawa Street North MHBC Planning on behalf of 20 Ottawa LP CITY OF KITCHENER MHBC Planning on behalf of 20 Ottawa LP has submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 20 Ottawa Street North in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development with three (3) buildings (two (2) six (6) storey buildings and one 26 storey building) consisting of 464 residential units with .04 acreof land. Proposed from the north portion of the property with pedestr and ground floor commercial space on a 1.23 ha (3access pOne access is oints to Ottawa Street North through an above `bridge' connection. Parkette space and landscaping are proposed around the periphery of the subject lands. Surface parking is also is also proposed on site. The subject lands are located in a Major Transit Station Area of the City of Kitchener Urban Structure, designated Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre with Special Policy Area 3. In addition, the subject lands are Zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre (C-2) Zone with Special Provision 2U in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law. The Official Plan Amendment is required to permit an increase in FSR of 3.0 whereas a maximum FSR of Document Number: 3951311 Version: 1 Page 1 of 6 Page 46 of 130 1.0 is permitted. The Zoning By-law Amendment is required to rezone the lands from the C-2 Zone to the Commercial Residential (C-4) Zone with special provisions toemit a minimum rear yard of 3.0m, residential units on the ground floor of a building, and a parking rate of 0.66/unit for residents and a visitor -parking rate of 4.8%. The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following this time:at Regional Comments Consistency with Provincial Legislation and Regional Official Plan Conformit The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3a the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the site is located in the Major Transit Station of Arr of the City of Kitchener and is designated Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre with ea Special Policy Area 3 in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Planned Communit Structure. 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 Nodes, Corridors and other areas that are linked via an integrated transportation syof stem (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 Grlude Centres (UGC's) and Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA's). °h Most of the Region's growth will occur within the Urban Area and Township Urban Area designations, with a substantial portion of this growth directed to the existingUp Built - Area of the Region through reurbanization. Focal points for reurbanization include Urban Growth Centres, Township Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Are Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes (ROP Section 2.13). as, Regional staff acknowledge that the subject lands are located within 500-800 Borden ION Stop and is located in the Regional Council Endorsed Borden Major Transit m of the Station Area (endorsed by Regional Council through the ongoing Regional Municipal Comprehensive Review). In addition, Regional staff acknowledge J men is located on an Existing Transit Corridor and a planned cycling route. g that the development applicant has proposed a higher density development with a reduced park ng rate and e increased bike storage on site. Land Use ComatibiIity: Regional staff acknowledge that the subject lands are within the potential area of influence from Industrial land uses to the south and agree with the classification of those land uses as Class II industrial land uses. The minimum setback from the Class II industrial land uses shall be 70 m and regional staff acknowledge that the subject I are beyond 70 metres from the Class II industrial land uses. J ands Document Number: 3951311 Version: 1 Page 2 of 6 Page 47 of 130 Noise: Regional staff are currently reviewing the noise study entitled "Road Traffic and Stationary Noise Impact Study, 20 Ottawa Street North, Kitchener, Ontario" dated May 3, 2021; completed by JJ Acoustics Engineering Ltd. Comments regarding the suitability of the proposal based on the review of the noise study from both a Road and Stationary Noise perspective will follow separately. It is required that these comments be received and that the Region accepts both the Road and Stationary Noise aspects of the report prior to a final recommendation regarding the development proposal by Regional staff. In addition to the above, the Region wishes to advise the applicant of the following technical comments related to the proposal: Environmental Threats/Record of Site Condition: According to the Regions Threats Inventory Database, there are medium and high environmental threats on and adjacent to the subject lands. Regional staff understand that the applicant is proposing a more sensitive land use; therefore, a Record of Site Condition is required in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines for the Review of Development Applications on or Adjacent to Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites (Section 2.G.18 of the ROP). The Region shall accept a Holding Zone provision until the Record of Site Condition has been completed and the Ministry Acknowledgement letter has been issued; all to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Please ensure that any lands to be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo through the site plan process (road dedication lands) are excluded from any Record of Site Condition (RSC) for the proposed development. Corridor Planning Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject lands have access to Ottawa Street North via two full movement accesses. Through the concept plan provided, the applicant is proposing to close these accesses and re -construct a single full movement (full moves) access to Ottawa Street North at the easterly limit of the property. Regional staff have no objection to the proposed access at this stage and detailed comments regarding the access shall be reviewed and provided through a future site plan application. In addition, please be advised that a Regional Road Access Permit application and fee (currently $230.00) shall be required through a future site plan application. The Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study and Transportation Demand Study (TIS/TDM) entitled "20 Ottawa Street North, Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study and Access and Circulation Review" dated October 2021, prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited is under review. Comments will be sent under separate cover. Please be advised that if any improvements to the Regional Road Document Number: 3951311 Version: 1 Page 3 of 6 Page 48 of 130 network are identified through the study and approved by the Region of Waterloo, the developer shall be responsible for any financial and property requirements associated with the road improvements. Regional staff must accept the Traffic Impact Study prior to a recommendation being made on the application. Stormwater Management & Site Grading: The report entitled "20 Ottawa Street North, Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report" dated October 27, 2021, completed by MTE Consultants Inc. has been received and is currently under review by Regional staff. The Region must be satisfied with the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report prior to a recommendation being made on this application by the Region or City of Kitchener. Regional Road Dedication: While the Road dedication is not required to be transferred at the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage, Regional staff require the dedication to be shown correctly on the concept plans and for the proposal to be designed with the Road dedication incorporated into the concept plans. Based on the plans submitted in support of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications, it is hard to tell if the road widening has been shown appropriately. Region of Waterloo staff have estimated the road widening along Ottawa Street North at approximately 1.22m (4ft). Please update all plans accordingly. The exact amount of road dedication must be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) in consultation with the Region's Transportation Planner. Furthermore, the land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes, and must be dedicated without cost and free of encumbrance through the site plan application process. A Phase I ESA, and possibly a Phase II ESA based on the findings of the Phase I, will be required for the portion of lands to be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo. Please ensure that any lands to be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo are excluded from any Record of Site Condition (RSC) for the proposed development. Transit Planning: Grand River Transit (GRT) currently operates numerous Routes along this section of Ottawa Street North with existing transit stops in close proximity to the subject lands. GRT staff have been circulated the associated transportation studies related to this development and comments will be provided under separate cover. Region of Waterloo Transportation Capital Program: This section of Ottawa Street North is identified in the Region of Waterloo's 10 -Year Transportation Capital Program (TCP) as up for reconstruction in 2022. For more Document Number: 3951311 Version: 1 Page 4 of 6 Page 49 of 130 information regarding this project please contact Mr. Greg Proctor (gproctor(ci)regionofwaterloo ca). 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 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 annual household income for low and moderate income $368,000 households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 1=the below the average purchase price of a resale unit regional market area`Based on the most recent infation available from the PPS Housing Tabl). 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 ce�ofhegross annual household income for low and moderaome renter households $1,420 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 'Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2020) 4+ Bedroom: $1,359 In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above. Document Number: 3951311 Version: 1 Page 5 of 6 Page 50 of 130 In addition, in order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of beinga those who require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market there should be an agreement in place with conditions e affordable to the people who can rent or own the homes as well as conditionsstablishing the income levels of provides, units need to remain affordable. A security should be registered not t eVtoong those affordable units are maintained over the term of the agreement. ensure the Fees By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of th $7,400.00.e review fees of General Comments/Follow U : Based on comments above, the following items are required to be addressed satisfaction of the Region prior to final comments being issued by the Region and any recommendation by the City of Kitchener on the development to the proposal: • Acceptance of the Environmental Noise Study • Acceptance of the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Re • Acceptance of the Traffic Impact Study port • Update to the Concept plan to show the Correct Road dedication Once the above has been addressed to the satisfaction of the Region Waterloo, a Holding Zone shall be required to address the al Municipality of following: • Receipt of the Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowl letter to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. edgement Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted a subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 1 - successor thereof. application will be Y 9 037 or any Please accept this letter as our request for a co PY ed not hesitatethe decision to contact to this application. Should you have any questions, pleas Yours truly, tact me. } 1, -n�_ Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner C. 20 Ottawa LP (Owner) Dave Aston, MHBC Planning (Applicant) Document Number: 3951311 Version: 1 Page 6 of 6 Page 51 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Melissa Mohr <MMohr@regionofwaterloo.ca> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 12:04 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Shilling Yip; Jason Wigglesworth Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regional Comments- Noise Aspects of OPA21/12 and ZBA 21/18 (20 Ottawa Street North) Good Morning Craig, Please note that the Transportation and Stationary Noise aspects of the Noise Report entitled "Road Traffic and Stationary Noise Impact Study, 20 Ottawa Street North, Kitchener, Ontario" prepared by JJ Acoustic Engineering Ltd. dated May 3, 2021 (Reference No. JJ-00315-N1S1) togetherwith JJAE April 7, 2022 response to Region comments have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the Region of Waterloo at the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage. Regional staff shall require a Holding Zone until such time as a detailed transportation and stationary noise study has been received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed noise study shall be required to address transportation and stationary impacts once the design details are known. In addition to the above, once the detailed Noise study has been received and accepted, all accepted mitigation and implementation measures shall be implemented through the site plan stage and through a Registered Agreement on title between the Owner/Developer and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener at the future condominium stage. I trust the above is satisfactory. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any additional questions. Kind Regards, Melissa Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner Planning, Development and Legislative Services Region of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor, Kitchener ON N2G 4J3 Cell: 1-226-752-8622 mmohL@regionofwaterloo ca Confidentiality Notice: This email correspondence (including any attachments) may contain information which is confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) listed above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or have otherwise received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by replying via e-mail, and destroy all copies of this original correspondence (including any attachments). Thank you for your cooperation. Page 52 of 130 Craiq Dumart From: Katie Wood Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:33 AM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Nathan Katerberg; 'Rebecca Kerr' Subject: 20 Ottawa St N Hello Craig, I received the information I needed from the consultant to support the zone change proposed for 20 Ottawa St N. Kitchener Utilities have also reviewed and accepted the water distribution report. Engineering and KU have no further concerns at this time. Let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, ark",a-ti WO C.E.T. Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood Cabkitchener ca Page 53 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Dave Seller Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 1:55 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: OPA/ZBA comments - 20 Ottawa Street North City of Kitchener Application Type: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments Application: OPA21/012/0/CD & ZBA21/018/0/CD Project Address: 20 Ottawa Street North Comments of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 Date of Comments: January 13, 2022 a. After reviewing the Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study and Access and Circulation Review (October submitted by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd., Transportation Services offer the followin 2021) g commentsnts. This site is proposing three residential towers ranging in height from 6 to 26 storeys with a total of 464 units. development is estimated to generate 121 AM and 144 PM peak hour vehicle trips, with one access Point se This the site along the Ottawa Street North (Regional Road 4) frontage. There was no intersection analysis t servicing the City of Kitchener, as it relates to the Regional road network. However, a review of the site access point wascompleted by completed for the 2026 Total Traffic Operations scenario. p nt was The site access vehicle turning movements were expressed as an average vehicle delay - Level of Service volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Under the forecasted 2026 Total Traffic Operations, the site access iso eratin and a LOS C and v/c ratio of 0.33 in the AM peak hour and LOS C and v/c ratio of 0.21 in the PM peak hour. I e1he with scenario, there is acceptable vehicle delay and sufficient vehicle capacity. tr 2026 As part of the submitted report, a parking study was completed in support of reducing the current 85-1 zo law parking rate of 1.25 space per unit to the proposed 0.74 spaces per unit. The development is proposing Hing by- es g 343 parking spaces, where the current zoning by-law parking requirement is 580 spaces, this equates to a arki shortfall of 237 spaces or a 41% parking reduction. p ng As part of the Parking Justification in Section 6, Parking Demand Forecasts were analyzed that focused on following, ITE Parking Generation, area specific vehicle ownership, comparable site parking demands a the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that are beingnd proposed for this development. The ITE Parking Generation for this type of development suggests the peak parking demand is 242 spaces, where this development is proposing 343 parking spaces. This equates to a 101 parking space surplus. The area vehicle ownership for apartment dwellers is approximately 0.55 vehicle per household with a need for6 parki25 pparki ng spaces. This equates to an 87 parking space surplus. The parking rates of six comparable sites all located within City of Kitchener concluded an average peak parking demand of 0.68 parking spaces per unit. This equates the parking surplus of 27 spaces. q s to a 1 Page 54 of 130 TDM measures being proposed for this development include unbundled parking from t secure Class A and 20 Class B bicycle parking spaces and providing subsidized Grand River Transit he cost of a unit, 239 indoor period of two years after full build -out. Also, the use of existing sidewalks on both sides of GRT pedestrian walkability, existing GRT routes (2, 7, 8, 205) and ION route (GRT) for a roads in the area for 600m from the site. 301 (Borden Station), which are all less than It should be noted that, while there are no on -street cycling facilities in the immediate area, there are plans for future cycling facilities along Ottawa Street North and along City of Kitchener roadways in the area. Visitor parking should be provided at a minimum rate of 10% which would follow the intent of the future zoning by- law for this type of development. Based on the proposed parking of 343 spaces, a minimum of 35 parking spaces must be allocated on-site for visitor parking. The truck turning movement plan submitted as part of Paradigms report for the TAC design vehicle HSU (Heavy Single Unit) is acceptable. Provided that the proposed TDM strategies mentioned above (unbundled parking, Class A/B bike parking, GRT g transit passes) are provided, Transportation Services feel that the proposed parkin rate of 0.74 parking spaces per unit for the residential component would service this site adequately, based on the review 2021 report. of Paradigms October 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 am- From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, December 06, 20214:42 PM To: _DL _#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jo mmon- Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <D ave Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning nes tchene .ca>; avid P ave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Rca>; CA -Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <JJiim.Edmondson @kilt h; Hydro o er.ca>; Ka Deine H <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwh dro.o <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>• ,Katherine Hughes Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Powe Generation lnda Cooper <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Plannin Rober<PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <Pro Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Stev g@kitchener.ca>; Region -Planning t Eastman Robert.M .ca> pDataAd ylvie Eastman stmanr.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <plannin b.ca>; e RDSB henerd Se retar Eastman (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine burns g@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB -Board Secretary Cc: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitcheneca>b'ca>; WRDSB -Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (20 Ottawa Street North) Please see attached letter. Additional documentation is saved in AMANDAfolders 21-134393 and 21-134397) for internal staff reference & Sha_ r_ eFile for external agencies. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, AMANDA( folders Planner (copied on this email). 2 Page 55 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Craig Dumart Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:15 AM To: Lenore Ross Subject: RE: 20 Ottawa st n - revised concept Hi Lenore, As discussed, updated design details and amenity features will be deferred to the site plan process. The applicant is aware that an updated design brief is required as part of a complete site plan approval application. Thanks for reviewing and providing comments. 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.dumartrci)kitchener ca From: Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:53 AM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: 20 Ottawa st n - revised concept Hi Craig, Thank you for the revised development concept for OPA21/012/0/CD and ZBA21/018/0/CD at 20 Ottawa St N. (Edge Architects Design Report dated 2022.03.30). The incorporation of a central on-site landscaped amenity space on the structured parking podium between Buildings A and B is positive as there is little active public parkland in the immediate King East neighbourhood. The Planning Justificaton Report and Urban Design Brief (MHBC documents) should be updated to reflect a revised conceptual layout which includes a robust on-site outdoor amenity space with good solar access and protection from wind. The PJR and UDB should include commentary on how the immediate park needs of the proposed residents will be met on-site and include specific amenity space components along with representative images and description of anticipated facilities including seating and play equipment for residents of all ages and abilities. As part of the Site Plan application supporting Urban Design studies (assessment of shadows, solar access, a full wind tunnel model) should include on-site amenity spaces, at -grade pedestrian spaces, the adjacent public realm and any lands dedicated for parkland. Once acceptable updates to the OPA/ZBA supporting documents have been provided, Parks and Cemeteries can support the OPA/ZBA. As per previously provided comments, Parkland Dedication will be deferred at the OPA and ZBA and assessed at the Site Plan Application and taken as a combination of land and cash -in -lieu of land and will be assessed Page 56 of 130 based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the OPA and ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Dedication requirements are subject to the Parkland Dedication Policy current at the time of a formal site plan application. Further discussions are required with Parks and Cemeteries staff regarding suitable land for parkland dedication. A conceptual land dedication area of approximately 1200m2 is shown below. The File Planner, Urban Design staff and Development Engineering should be included in discussions. Regards Lenore Lenore Ross MSc, MCIP, RPP Parks Planning and Development Project Manager Design & Development I Parks and Cemeteries City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext 7427 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 Lenore. Ross@Kitchener.ca Discover nature in the city: www.kitchener.ca/parks A City for Everyone — Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community "00100000 2 Page 57 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Mike Seiling Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 4:49 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (20 Ottawa Street North) Attachments: Department & Agency Letter - 20 Ottawa St N.pdf Building; no concerns From: Christine Kompter <Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, December 6, 20214:42 PM To: _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; 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>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (20 Ottawa Street North) Please see attached letter. Additional documentation is saved in AMANDA (folders 21-134393 and 21-134397) for internal staff reference & ShareFile for external agencies. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994_c_hristine.kompter@kitchener.ca 000 0000%1 Page 58 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 12:06 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (20 Ottawa Street North) Hey Craig, This is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment. regards, Trevor Heywood Resource Planner I" Grand River Conservation Authority theywood@grandriver.ca From: Christine Kompter <Christine. Kom pter@ kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, December 6, 20214:42 PM To: _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; 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>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; Planning <planning@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.Seilin kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <SVIvie. Eastman@ kitchener.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (20 Ottawa Street North) Please see attached letter. Additional documentation is saved in AMANDA (folders 21-134393 and 21-134397) for internal staff reference & ShareFile for external agencies. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, 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 TI;„ t =+�► Page 59 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Karen <i Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 11:22 AM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Sarah Marsh; dalton@mhbcplan.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development of 20 Ottawa st N My thoughts There is to be 464 Residential units, but only 343 parking spaces,what are the other 121 supposed to do for parking? Do the parking spaces noted include ones for the mix use development? What exactly is meant by "reduced rear yard setbacks"? Sounds like gobble -d -gook to me. If indeed a high rise is incorporated, shouldn't it be towards the back of the property? Why is a high rise necessary? Just add units to the low rise units and keep them all at the same level. Does mixed use include the likes of a repair garage, or a unit where gas, oil, torches are used? Karen Binkert Sent from my Pad Page 60 of 130 Craiq Dumart From: Paul Hopkins Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 7:19 AM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Application for development 20 Ottawa. Hello Craig, I sent this last night but I had you email address wrong. Nevertheless, I'll assume it was received by your colleague, Sarah Marsh, and Dave Aston by the Jan 25th deadline. Thank you and have nice day! Paul Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Hopkins Subject: Application for development 20 Ottawa. Date: January 25, 2022 at 9:17:47 PM EST To: craig.dumant(a.kitchener ca, sarah.marsh(cr�kitchener ca, daston(c)mhbcplan.com Hello Craig and others, I live , house is located at the -onto the planned development at 20 Ottawa st. (The enormous Manitoba maple next to Crescent street across from the church parking lot is in my backyard.),I'm writing to express questions and concerns about the development. I've reviewed the documentation. For the most part, I am impressed and appreciative with the consideration that has gone into the concept drawing with regards to houses and residents currently living next to the former used car lot. The 6 storey buildings seem reasonable and in my case. And the overdosing still allows for space and lights to break through. I am am very supportive of the mixed use development and the initiative to create amore pedestrian friendly neighbourhood. So of my concerns are as follows: Vegetation Management Report (Project 2021-33) Pages L1 and L2 • The note section of drawing L1 proposes to remove the following trees: 24, 26A, 27, 28 and 29. These are all healthy, beautiful, and mature maple trees that provide privacy, noise, and pollution reduction features for the four homes along southwest Onward Avenue and the general community. Understanding these are private property trees located on the proposed development, it would be a shame to remove them without an extraordinary justification. Crescent Street (between Onward Avenue and the Proposed Development) Page 61 of 130 Pedestrian traffic. There is a considerable pedestrian traffic between Ottawa Street and Crescent. People cross through the old used car lot frequently, as they should. It's a natural short cut, saving roughly 10 minutes, if one were to be walking between, say, the Tim Hortons on Ottawa street and downtown Kitchener. Has this been considered in the plans? It seems like it would be good opportunity to formalize and encourage pedestrian traffic and a direct walking path between Ottawa and King st. Temporary homeless shelters. There's lots of people that make temporary shelters behind the currently vacant building on the lot, including behind the church next to me. There have been numerous times that the police, have had to go in and clear people out. Has there been consideration for this problem? And are there any reasons for us to be concerned that once the development is completed the design will encourage more temporary shelters to get set up? Or will the design encourage more of them? Or will these temporary shelters start getting set up in my backyard? 1 hope not, but I'm wondering if this unfortunate fact of life at the end of Crescent street has been taken into considered in the development plans? Or does the city has a plan to deal with this unfortunate aspect of our neighbourhood? (I believe that if the throughway between the mall were formalized with a well -lite walkway, it would dissuade people from setting up temporary shelters. Also, it would encourage more legitimate foot traffic and people to take advantage of this short cut which currently feels like a trespassing violation when walking through it.) My last concern is more personal professional matter. I earn my living as an actor and a voiceover artist. With the arrival of COVIDI9, I have become more and more dependant on my home as a work space. I have a professional grade sound studio where I record voiceover for clients all over the world. I also regularly generate work through self -tape auditions in my back room, right next to where the construction will be taking place. I worried that I'll be living next to a construction site, through no choice of my own, for two or three years and I won't be able to generate an income for myself. My question is, what rights do I have with regards to sound levels and construction? This is going to have a considerable impact on my ability to earn a living. Thanks for the consideration and for allowing us the opportunity to respond to the development plans. I'm excited and encouraged that a mix -.use development is going up and I think it's a great step forward towards making Kitchener a much more vital and pedestrian friendly city. Aside from the concerns above, I am very supportive of the initiative. All the best, Paul Paul Hopkins Page 62 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Doug Fitzgibbons ;> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 7:27 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Proposed development application for 20 Ottawa St. N Hi Craig. Thank you for forwarding the information to us. I commend the applicants for putting so much thought into placement of the buildings especially as it relates to the home owners who will be most affected by the development. We have known for sometime that something big would be built on that site and we appreciate that they have made concessions to minimize the impact on the properties that are closest to the proposed buildings. That being said we do have a few concerns with the proposal. Increased traffic is a concern. Based on the drawings it appears that the primary access will be from Frederick St. Will the lane way beside the Church be closed off or will the buildings have an alternate access leading to Onward Ave? Obviously, our choice would be to have the access at Onward Ave closed off. Based on the number of planned parking spaces parking will be an issue for our neighbourhood. Although, parking will not be an issue on Onward Ave as there is no on street parking, the impact will be felt by all of the neighbouring streets. The tree report mentions that 2 dead trees will be removed at the back of the lot. We are certain that those 2 trees are directly behind our property. The trees at the back of our property (even though they haven't always been in the best of shape) have provided a buffer zone between us and the property behind us especially in the summer when the trees are full. We are wondering if consideration could be given to replacing the trees that will be removed? It is also difficult to tell from the documents and drawings what the back of the property will look like. I notice in one of the documents that retaining walls are mentioned. Will the elevation of the property be raised? If so, how will this impact the neighbouring properties in terms of drainage and how it will look? Are the retaining walls planned for the back or sides of the property? Will the back edge of the property come to our fence line or will there be a space between the back of the proposed development and our fence line? Will the residents along the back be able to continue using their back gates as almost all of the properties have a gate that leads to the parking lot? There is also mention of landscaping at the back of the property. Again, based on the documents it is difficult to visualize what this might look like. Will the landscaping incorporate the existing trees? Can the planned landscaping include larger trees and plantings to minimize the visual impact on the bordering properties? It was interesting to read the noise impact study. Unfortunately, the sole focus was on the impact on the residents of the proposed buildings with no mention of the impact on the bordering residents. Just some food for thought regarding future proposals. These concerns may well be answered at the upcoming public meeting regarding the proposed development and we look forward to attending and getting more details. Regards, Jane and Doug Page 63 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Bobby Pepall < Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 10:50 AM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Development Hi Craig, my feedback on the new potential development between Ottawa and Onward is that I don't care much. It looks so huge that something else would have to be torn down. If it affects me at all it will just be a huge pain with all the roads shut down again due to construction. Page 64 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Bill Cressman Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 2:50 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Sarah Marsh; Mayor; LLindo-QP@ndp.on.ca; mike.morrice@parl.gc.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Application - OPA21/012/0/CD - 20 Ottawa Street North, Kitchener ON Hello Mr. Dumart, I am writing as a private citizen, resident, and owner of the Ward 10 property located at in N ) to express my vehement opposition to the proposal redevelopment per planning application OPA21/012/0/CD as shown above at 20 Ottawa Street North, Kitchener ON. The Eastwood neighbourhood within which I live is a quiet and serene neighbourhood consisting of mainly single-family dwellings, which is the primary motivating factor in my decision to purchase my home here. This neighbourhood would be severely impacted by not only the visual uglification of the surrounding neigbourhood by way of impositions of tall structures on the skyline, but also by the unwanted population intensification which will manifest itself in many ways, including but not limited to: • Increased intensity of traffic in, out and through the community, in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to establish safe travel speeds and compliance with road safety regulations. • Increased traffic noise, again in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to ensure that vehicles operated in and around the community meet established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, resulting in further worsening of street noise already above a reasonable level due to traffic both along Highway 7 and within the community's own streets. • Increased general noise directly caused by the population intensification in an area already plagued by noise not only from the aforementioned lack of enforcement of established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, but by increased air traffic in and out of the municipal international airport (YKF). • Increased disruption by construction activities as the developer would implement planned facility. • Increased crime due to the intensification of population in the community that this project will cause. • Erosion of our voices as voters and as property owners within the physical boundaries of this neighbourhood. I ask that the City of Kitchener to: 1. Deny this application and prevent the project from going forward, 2. Withhold from use any funds from the tax base at the municipal, regional, provincial, and federal levels into which our community residents contribute, saving those funds from being diverted away from the neglected community standards enforcement already plaguing this community to further enhance profitability of the commercial interests of this property owner and commercial entities working with them. 3. Reject this application with prejudice so as to set a precedence to not further entertain applications of this nature in this community going forward by this applicant or by other applicants. 4. Not prove the ineffectiveness of democratic process by reviewing and subsequently ignoring this request. 5. BE BETTER in its proactive and EFFECTIVE informing of residents affected by proposals such as these (all residents, at least within a 1 km radius of proposed project sites). Sincerely, William (Bill) Cressman -1 2G6 Page 65 of 130 Craig Dumart From: R Cressman < Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:43 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Sarah Marsh; Mayor; LLindo-QP@ndp.on.ca; mike.morrice@parl.gc.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Application OPA21/012/0/CD 20 Ottawa Street North Kitchener ON Hello Mr. Dumart, I am writ l i as a nr. ;{e citizen, resident, and owner of the Ward 10 property located at in K _. - _ - Lo express my vehement opposition to the proposal redevelopment per planning application urHz iiu iz/O/CD as shown above at 20 Ottawa Street North, Kitchener ON. The Eastwood neighbourhood within which I live is a quiet and serene neighbourhood consisting of mainly single-family dwellings, which is the primary motivating factor in my decision to purchase my home here. This neighbourhood would be severely impacted by not only the visual uglification of the surrounding neigbourhood by way of impositions of tall structures on the skyline, but also by the unwanted population intensification which will manifest itself in many ways, including but not limited to: • Increased intensity of traffic in, out and through the community, in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to establish safe travel speeds and compliance with road safety regulations. • Increased traffic noise, again in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to ensure that vehicles operated in and around the community meet established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, resulting in further worsening of street noise already above a reasonable level due to traffic both along Highway 7 and within the community's own streets. • Increased general noise directly caused by the population intensification in an area already plagued by noise not only from the aforementioned lack of enforcement of established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, but by increased air traffic in and out of the municipal international airport (YKF). • Increased disruption by construction activities as the developer would implement planned facility. • Increased crime due to the intensification of population in the community that this project will cause. • Erosion of our voices as voters and as property owners within the physical boundaries of this neighbourhood. I ask that the City of Kitchener to: 1. Deny this application and prevent the project from going forward, 2. Withhold from use any funds from the tax base at the municipal, regional, provincial, and federal levels into which our community residents contribute, saving those funds from being diverted away from the neglected community standards enforcement already plaguing this community to further enhance profitability of the commercial interests of this property owner and commercial entities working with them. 3. Reject this application with prejudice so as to set a precedence to not further entertain applications of this nature in this community going forward by this applicant or by other applicants. 4. Not prove the ineffectiveness of democratic process by reviewing and subsequently ignoring this request. 5. BE BETTER in its proactive and EFFECTIVE informing of residents affected by proposals such as these (all residents, at least within a 1 km radius of proposed project sites). Sincerely, Rhonda Cressman r\esiaew, vwnt, Page 66 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 12:11 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 20 Ottawa St N Thank you for your quick response! Jeff Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 6, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > All supporting documents can be found online here: > https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenData/AMANDADataSets/Supporting_Documents_List_639837.pdf > A neighbourhood meeting will be scheduled late- mid February. > Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP > Senior Planner I Planning Division City of Kitchener > (519) 741-2200 ext 7073 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 craig.dumart@kitchener.ca > -----Original Message----- * From: Jeff Barber > Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 11:50 AM > To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] 20 Ottawa St N > Dear Mr Dumart > As per the flyer distributed to some (not all residents of Onward Ave) I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed high rise development behind my property. > Residents whose backyard face the proposed site have significant concerns about a high rise building and how this will impact our privacy. We have also had discussions about noise, increased traffic on a street with over 30 children, and property values. > We look forward to hearing how these among other concerns will be addressed. I would appreciate any information with regards to this project, including any planned neighborhood meetings. > With Kind Regards, > Jeff Barber > Sent from my iPad Page 67 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Lauren Logan Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 4:54 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Adrian Logan Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding Development of 20 Ottawa Street North Hello, I know that community comments were supposed to arrive by January 25th, but I hope you will please consider including my comments and concerns as our home will be directly impacted by this development. We live ind I have major concerns over the impacts this will have to our property and our quality of life. Buildings that large, 6 stories or 26, will obscure most of the sunlight we get in a day. During the winter months, we may not get any sunlight at all because we are already blocked on one side by the church next door. In the summer months we likely won't see the sun until well into the afternoon. This will impact our backyard most especially. Our plants will be impacted, as well as our enjoyment of the yard, if there is no sunlight. There are also privacy concerns. We have a hot tub in our backyard, and our children enjoy swimming in their kiddie pool during the warmer months. With buildings so large looming over us, the residence will be able to see right into our yard. The size of the proposed building project will also impact our property values. With a backyard that gets no sunlight, and no privacy this will have an impact whenever we decide to sell our home. Lastly, this will have a detrimental impact on our overall quality of life. My husband and I both work from home. The reduced sunlight will have an impact on our mood. As well the construction will act as a distraction and impediment to concentration, and sleep for our children. Individually, these concerns may not seem like much, but all together it will have a negative impact on our lives and our enjoyment of our home. Thank you for taking the time to read our concerns. Sincerely, Lauren Logan Page 68 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Lauren Chlumsky Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:51 PM To: Craig Dumart; Rob Chlumsky Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development application comments - 20 Ottawa St N Hi Craig, We are writing to share initial considerations for the proposed development at 20 Ottawa St N, in close proximity to our home. We believe the existing site is underutilized and this presents a great opportunity for redevelopment / intensification to better compliment the surrounding areas. However, we have several concerns with the proposed concept, and have listed a few examples below that we find to be inadequate / inappropriate given the site and neighbourhood context: • scale of development, building massing, location and orientation • transition to adjacent established residential neighbourhood • pedestrian access through the site to the adjacent residential neighbourhood and other key destinations. Of note, the existing site provides a very important and highly utilized informal pedestrian connection from Crescent St to Eastwood Square • building facades, street frontages (facing both Ottawa and Crescent St) • park/amenity space, tree retention, and potential for tree replanting to offset removed trees • onsite stormwater management, including volume retention • groundwater quality and treatment during construction • Proposed mix of uses and unit types: commercial uses should be a priority here, will there be a mix of residential unit sizes, types & affordability? • consistency with the PARTS Rockway plan • there is insufficient information available for any impacts to skyview, sunlight/shadows, overlook etc. on neighbouring areas Is the applicant willing to consider detailed site design work concurrent to the OPA/ZBA? We hope our comments can ultimately help lead to improvements in the development concept and look forward to further discussion. Thanks, Lauren & Rob Chlumsky Page 69 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Phil Roberts Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 6:51 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Sarah Marsh Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 20 Ottawa St N - Neighbourhood Meeting Attachments: 20 Ottawa Street development opposition.pdf Hello again, I would like to submit the attached enhanced written opposition to the redevelopment at 20 Ottawa Street in advance of our neighbourhood meeting today. Please ensure that my feedback is considered and included in the decision-making process surrounding this application. Regards, Phil From: Phil Roberts Sent: February 24, 2022 4:27 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Cc: Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: 20 Ottawa St N - Neighbourhood Meeting I would like to request an investigation into the validity of the legal entity who is making this planning application, 20 Ottawa GP INC. Ontario records indicate that this entity was incorporated on May 18, 2021, and at the time of incorporation at least one listed Director had an Address for Service that is a non-existent address. This Director is listed as Colton Zehr with address At time of my inquiry, their corporate profile on January 29, 2022, the address has been changed, however the profile indicates that the corporation now has no Officers. I have included copies of the original and current (as of January 29, 2022) profile reports for your convenience. I feel it is incumbent upon the City of Kitchener to ensure that the applying entity is an above board and legitimate legal person. Please enquire. Regards, Phil Roberts From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Sent: February 24, 2022 11:21 AM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Cc: Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca> Subject: 20 Ottawa St N - Neighbourhood Meeting Page 70 of 130 O 00 m V) Page 71 of 130 0 0 0 0 ® m m 7 7n p `� n n n n 0• cD y cD N (DCD PJ z E_ _ y (Dr) (D 0 (D 0(D (D. 0 Q a a �..I (D Q'Q(D O O pA) M _o m (D :3_ (D (D < N N (D OrQ A� nn O rt W M -., y, D (D PJ a H < (D (DD r•' O'Q O O 5 n H r+ --h P? O CA (D O O (n 0�G T 0 � C+ O C � O O H r O _ CD O O n vii O c (D S. L M2. N O UIQ O VJ n o -j- m �- (D . (DZ O m arQ • �- c m S =- (D n 00 l a oa p) c O O0 w f D' O 0 Z Page 72 of 130 Page 73 of 130 s 0 O ® ® ® a O'G 3 (D m Q a (D S o (D -I 0 y a c n o O cr c z W o (D a- n a c a � c � m rt m !2. r) mo N go' oin r+ o a °�, o� ° °- v = _EA �. n c —V = rt (D Q (D vii m 0 O p ° (A n Oa 3n o -n S a. (D '� N p M (D NN d y Com' M \G N0. r CA MIS. ` ° << :3<' r+ ° (D o r1 i z cr m s� (n _ (D fD ° H N O _ N � rD o- C n CD o c O a r 20 D r) H H _ _ (D o-(D�- a `� ° z � CA CD A n y _y ( M f�D c w O w CAO N < < o o 's OrQ CA 0 o T. Page 73 of 130 0 O ® 0 n CD =' -1 C+ N w w a m C w N O m n Z ft (A O r _3 � 200 � n G N ON0 O O'G m 5' 0 0A 0- O N n OIQ c 3 c '. O p C n C: rt 0 3 m N I'l Page 74 of 130 (D W r a rt s �' o m w CD � N O rP O rt C C+ rt s m t O '0 a m fD rt s s cD O C n rt O w 3 = 3 S C m C 5� a a N dQ Vf' N C n C CL D a Page 75 of 130 O rf 3 0 �• g �' O _ O m o N (D �- �o °-oma n Nn s n c �G O 0 O 0 cD A) O 3 D < < o- p rr -, 7� r+ (D (D 'v 0 n o o N o- (u — CD i raj m � �- CA s 0 o c o N = o- 3 as m 00 < N a" c o _' _ �- -1 N o 0 r 0 O 0 S N 5 O N O = a -y v,' O a CD O l� CD n � =r � w pq' r! O m cr X, rr < 'v n O -s o` of P r o M m o :3a o fD oa o o 0 crv o m � 5' o Page 76 of 130 O w CD CrQ O c�I Q S o n c� o r C+ S S N � (D m m N w r X a � N o � rt N °FQ N � rt r.r 3 n C w 0 3 rt 64. .S rt O a � m O c -r Page 77 of 130 r) w m CL f i N O a: (D N w r rt a O fD a m N C � ? m CD w n 0 c 0 7C C n Cn 7 V Z m N c� m �N N m c N m r+ � r•r m � � O n O r . Mr) c n O m �. fD � � O rt � < O. N n fD N � [D Page 77 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Ann Welch <a Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 12:48 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Written comments against planning application 20 Ottawa St N Kitchener On Good afternoon Mr. Dumart I have been trying to find the height limits on a CR4 zoning, would you know where I could find them? I was a little surprised that the developer was requesting a zoning change from C-2 with a 2U to a CR4. I would have thought they would want a MIX 3 or 4 since they are wanting to build a 26 story tower. Do you have an understanding as to why they would go in that direction? Sincerely Ann Welch On Monday, January 24, 2022, 09:36:27 p.m. EST, Craig Dumart <craig.dumart@kitchener.ca> wrote: Good evening, I hope you had a wonderful weekend Thank for taking the time to provide comments on the proposed development at 20 Ottawa St N. I wanted to inform you that staff have scheduled a Neighbourhood Meeting February 24, 2022 to discuss the proposed development with residents. You should be receiving an invitation in the mail for that meeting this week and I hope you are able to attend. If you wanted to discuss the proposed development in advance of the Neighbourhood Meeting, please let me know a time that would work for you. 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(Qkitchener.ca Page 78 of 130 Comment Submission to Planning Department January 24, 2022 Ann Welch Kitchener, un N/0 ZK4 RE: purposed build 20 Ottawa St. N Introduction: Having been an observer to the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing of January 13th 2022 "Albrecht v. Kitchener (City)" I have to question what really is the purpose of sharing our thoughts on this development as it appears to me that "the fix" is in. The city decided not to represent or defend its own planning department that spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of taxpayer's money to plan the future growth of the King Street East Neighbourhood and instead supported the decision of the volunteer committee of adjustment whose chairman is taking the city to the Ontario Land Tribunal over his own interest.' But residents aren't convinced the committee of adjustment is designed for public process. "If the city planning department says it is not minor in nature, that's it," Snyder said. '?hat should automatically mean it's not a committee of adjustment issue. The only possible way for Mr. Albrecht to have even been taken seriously at that hearing was for him and his neighbours to mortgage their homes to hire a lawyer and several experts to defend the City of. Kitchener planning department's recommendations against the developer's expert, Pierre Chauvin, a planner with MHBC Planning representing Vive, who appears to know better about what should be built then the city's planning department. And if that is the case, why bother with the expense of a planning department? It is a disgrace, injustice and disrespects to all the work the planning department does and the residence of Kitchener that pays for their work and it appears that I am not the only one feeling this way. Letters to the editor "It's up to citizens to preserve their mature neighbourhoodsi' - The Record January 21, 2022 "Other neighbours' commitment to oppose this development took nine months and thousands of dollars. We fought for the integrity of the neighbourhood, all the way to the Ontario Land Tribunal. As homeowners with pride in our distinct neighbourhood, we were treated as underdogs by the city. Can we count on the city to protect these neighbourhoods? When it bumps into policies favouring intensification, don't count on their support." ' https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/09/20/proposed-highrise in downtown kitchener sparks-controversv.htmI Denny Cybalski, the applicant behind the development, is also the volunteer chair of Kitchener's committee of adjustment, a city -appointed committee made up of volunteers who grant variances, as well as allowing changes to zoning bylaws such as building setbacks. Z 10 -storey tower can move ahead on King Street block January 19th 2022 htt ps://th erecord epa per. p ress rea de r. co m/wate r1 oo-region-record/20220119/textview ' https://therecordepaper.pressreader.com/waterloo-region-record/20220121/textview Written comments against planning application: 20 Ottawa St. N Kitchener, On Page 1 Page 79 of 130 Hysterical NIMBYism isn't driving opponents of Belmont Village development° - The Record January 21, 2022 "Luxury condos are not needed in Belmont Village, but affordable family housing, rental options, and green space development would be enthusiastically welcomed. That the applicant and institutional enablers refuse to address these needs, choosing instead to ignore or misrepresent residents' legitimate objections, speaks to the tacit NIMBYism inherent in profit - driven planning. This, however, is conspicuously absent from the public discourse. Such analysis, it would seem, is too long and complex a conversation to have." In the Belmont Village case the Zehr Group knowingly designed a building that was not zoned for this property. They never once considered a building that would meet the current zoning as it would not be viable. Instead they are relying on a site specific zone change to address many of this projects short falls.-' Q: Thank you for showing us how you arrived at a 13 -storey design. If your proposal is ultimately denied, will you still proceed with an 8 -storey building? If so, do you currently have an 8 -storey design, and can you please share it so we can also consider this alternative? Applicant: An 8 -storey building design has not been prepared Q: Can't all of these great benefits you are sharing be viable with 8 stories - the only trade-off is profits? Applicant: The project is not viable as an 8 -storey building. Q: This project seems to be driven by the concept of maximizing the building square footage, forcing the proponent to go higher when increasing setbacks. Would the project remain financially viable with a shorter building with the same building footprint as the 13 story concept? Applicant: The project is not viable as an 8 -storey building Another serious issue is that developers, instead of integrating onsite low cost housing they are "donating" money to another project on the condition of their zoning approval. (NIMBYism?) This sort of thing might make good PR and headlines in the newspaper but in the olden day people would have called this a bribe (money or favour given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust) but today the word is "bonusing" Yet the developer states this is not a case of bonusing? Because it is actually a condition of site approval, no approval, no donation: October 28, 2021 letter to Garett Stevenson Manager, Development Review6 "For consideration as part of our Zoning By-law Amendment resubmission and the request to clarify our intent related to supporting affordable housing needs, we are confirming our support 4 httPs://www.therecord.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editors/2022/01/21/hysterical nimbyism isnt driving s opponents of-belmont-village-development html letter to editor https://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenData/AMANDADataSets/593437 Comprehensive%20Engagement%20Re port%20 %20660%20Belmont%20Avenue%20West pdf page 5 6 https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/Open Data/AMANDADataSets/593437_NEW%20- 20Afforda ble%2oHousing%2OLetter%20(October%2028,%202021).pdf Written comments against planning application: 20 Ottawa St. N Kitchener, On Page 2 Page 80 of 130 to Menno Homes for their project on Bridgeport Road East at Lancaster Street (544 Bridgeport) in Kitchener. On behalf of our project at 660 Belmont, we are earmarking a $250,000 direct donation to the Menno Homes project at the time of full Site Plan Approval for the 660 Belmont project. As we understand, the donation will contribute to the development of the project's second phase, the first phase having been completed in2021" The planning department went to great effort and time to update the zoning, including massing models, wind studies, shadow studies, and application of design guidelines and community input to arrive at the current vision to grow and current zoning, only to have developers disregard the zoning and want what they want. To truly appreciate the work that the planning department did to find the correct balance between old and new I recommend that you take the time to read all 631 pages of "Planning Staff Reponses to Written and Verbal Submissions received 'Before', 'At' and'After'the Statutory Public Meeting held on December 9, 2019 to consider Official Plan Amendment OPA19/004/COK/TMW and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/ 010/COK/TMW (Neighbourhood Planning Review Project)"' Example: page 213 Staff Response In responses to the comments received at the various Open Houses with respect to the transition of medium and high-rise developments and their compatibility with adjacent low-rise residential areas, planning staff completed extensive 3D modelling. The purpose of this modelling was to determine the most appropriate combination/correlation of Floor Space Ratio (FSR) with maximum building height and to determine the most appropriate distance or setback of a medium and high-rise development from an adjacent low-rise neighbourhood. What Planning Staff were finding is that when a property had a maximum FSR and building height that did not correlate the development would meet one zoning requirement first, and put forward that they could exceed this zoning requirement because the other zoning requirement had not been met. Both FSR and Maximum Building Height were meant to work together, and this was not happening. The miscorrelation was being taken as an interpretation that one of the zoning requirements could be exceeded if the other zoning requirement had not been maxed out. For example, if the maximum FSR of a property was 4.0 and the maximum building height was 10 storeys, a proposal for a development having a FSR of 6.0 would be put forward because the maximum building height on the site was 10 storeys. The fact that the MIX -4 zone does not have a maximum building height is being put forward in the submissions, by both the development industry and the community, that this means this zone has "unlimited" height. It does not. A development's maximum building height in the MIX - 4 zone would be limited by the amount of building floor area that would be permitted by the lot area and the arrangement of this building floor area on the lot based on the MIX -4's setback requirements from lot lines, including the setbacks from low rise residential zones. No maximum building height in the MIX -4 zone does not mean unlimited height and that an FSR of 8.0, 10, or 12.0 is justified and appropriate. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/"resourcesGeneraI/Documents/DSD PLAN DSD -2021-92 Appendix B pdf Written comments against planning application: 20 Ottawa St. N Kitchener, On Page 3 Page 81 of 130 It is not the responsibility of the residents of Kitchener or their elected representatives to accommodate a developer's project when they knowingly purpose a project that is not within the zoning or within the true meaning of a minor adjustment to that zoning. All the direction of this intensification is about supporting the LRT, adding up towards 10,000 new residence per year but what is not talked about is all the supporting infrastructure that is already outdated and under serious stress. Hospitals were already full before the pandemic, how and where will the city be able expand without adequate services in hospital/fire/paramedics/ambulance Hospitals: Dec. 18, 2021 "At Grand River Hospital, for example, patient occupancy is regularly over 95 per cent, with some key departments, such as stroke, oncology and mental health, at beyond 100 per cent capacity, said Bonnie Camm, executive vice-president of clinical services."" Fire: Oct 05, 2021 "The Kitchener Fire Department (KFD) says it needs more firefighters and a new station to better handle the growing number of emergency calls they are receiving as a result of the city's growing population." "Firefighters are very expensive and we've been doing a good job of running efficiently and lean, but with the population growth and intensification, especially in the downtown, now we're finding response times and getting firefighters on the scene in a timely fashion is becoming more difficult," he said. The addition of more high-rise buildings in the city also puts a strain on resources, Gilmore said, because more firefighters are required to safely respond.9 Paramedics/Ambulance: Jan. 18, 2022 - Region of Waterloo paramedics say code red has been issued a lot more lately -- when there are no ambulances available to respond to an emergency call. In December, the region's paramedics saw 11 periods of code red.lo Comments on 20 Ottawa St N purposed build: "The City of Kitchener Official Plan: The King Street East Neighbourhood Secondary Plan identifies the subject property as a 'Neighbourhood Mixed -Use Centre' and Zoning By-law 85-1 zones the property as 'Neighbourhood Shopping Centre' (C-2) with special use provision 2U. The City's PARTS Plan identifies the subject property as being within the'Rockway Transit Station Area'." My first concern is this parcel of land is most likely the last piece of property that a well needed supermarket could be built on. If the plan is intensification, people need to shop and this area will be under served forcing people to continue to shop at Stanley Park Mall, Hiway area, Laurentian Power Centre, Fairview Mall or even further. Although each project has to be addressed as "site specific" and each study the developer submits will only look at what is in place now it is really important to look at the big picture. 8 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/12/18/omicron inferno poses threat to already overtaxed -waterloo -region -hospital -system -officials -warn html 9 htt0s://www.cbc.caZnews/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-fire department more staff new station 1.6198944 10https:Hkitchener.ctvnews ca/paramedics-battle-code-red influx in waterloo region 15745540 Written comments against planning application: 20 Ottawa St. N Kitchener, On Page 4 Page 82 of 130 20 Ottawa St N is purposing a 26 story rental tower, less than 300 meters away to the south, 1001 King Street E is purposing a 30 story rental tower. 450 meters to the east on King 1251 King E is purposing a 24 story rental tower (see Table A) \r eav 200ttawa Street NorthO 0300nawa Str I Hut /�\ ,c c \\ i�c // \\ \1 NRl.GChuich- �v,�gyOp� Kitchener site � C Oast al Mmveal �y., f0000 \ �•' C.a^. Sial 0000 eer on O 0 000 000 0�0 Q 000 O i�;; wort KI nwp 4 Gv( Marl al Ar� �r fi mmin 000�C7 ens f Youth s. 0;O51 rd loco: KIn95bcet Ea 550 meters west on King to936King St E there is already a 10 story building that has been approved. td Sopertce Source F rSp rts�,>�� 6min �n��ns sore soom Eastwood: King Street East 0200ttawa5 iim Hartons "oSki'ri Cycle Hut Go sr shop :+ 090 NMB Kil 10 00000 QQMO Dank of(t.Qtu,aal Stanley Park Auto Repair Id River 0 m 00 0a0U i; TcvrneDrnvl chener V ier�,lx,��liy da �min �0�00 Dulux pa Vr V �Dyy raim nose In this space of a couple of blocks within a well established neighbourhood there appears to be a lack of diversity in the buildings being purposed. Based on the purposed builds known the increase of the population in this area is now between 2,355 — 4,710 and all will be in "rental units" • Where are the townhomes? • Where are the low rise apartment buildings? • Where are the stacked townhomes? • Where are the condos? • Where are the semi detached houses? The demand is there but it appears that the will is not. Lack of Diversity in housing: Jan. 11, 2022 "Townhomes we just launched this week, for 10 units we had 1,500 people sign up showing interest," said Geoff McMurdo, chief administrative officer at Activa. By the time the list had been whittled down to serious buyers, it still had a whopping 750 names on it.11 11 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2022/01/11/bizarre-housing-market 1500 people sign up to-buv-l0-new-townhomes-in-cam bridge. htmI Written comments against planning application: 20 Ottawa St. N Kitchener, On Page 5 Page 83 of 130 Instead the King Street East neighbourhood is being treated like "low hanging fruit" by developers that are purposing to build 1 and 2 bedroom rental "units" not family homes. And these units don't come cheap ($1,400 to $1,800 per month) and being aimed at the $50K and above market. 1251 King Street E added 9 three bedroom rental townhomes and 20 Ottawa St N has included two six storey buildings with 68 dwelling units each but no information how many bedrooms these units contain or what the rental rates will be. Floor Space Ratio (FSR): My understanding is this ratio is to find a balance between lot size and building(s) and to prevent overbuilding. From the proposals I have seen there appears to be a push to go up much higher then what this area was made to believe. 20 Ottawa St N almost had it right and then they had to push the envelope by including the 26 story tower in the middle of a block surrounded by one and two story buildings. "What Planning Staff were finding is that when a property had a maximum FSR and building height that did not correlate the development would meet one zoning requirement first, and put forward that they could exceed this zoning requirement because the other zoning requirement had not been met. Both FSR and Maximum Building Height were meant to work together, and this was not happening. The miscorrelation was being taken as an interpretation that one of the zoning requirements could be exceeded if the other zoning requirement had not been maxed out. For example, if the maximum FSR of a property was 4.0 and the maximum building height was 10 storeys, a proposal for a development having a FSR of 6.0 would be put forward because the maximum building height on the site was 10 storeys." 12 We were told during the review of the King Street East Neighbourhood that this was an example of the type of development we should be expecting, one that blended and balanced with the existing properties with lots of parking, green spaces and a diversity of housing. Not something that overwhelmed the neighbourhood like this current proposal for 20 Ottawa St. N will do.13 Facilitate redevelopment of the mid-sized site bounded by Charles St, Delta St and Sydney St. le Noun4 II !em i i d b k 1, e lock P.Mi�". 4� tom- Eo o1 qhb h tl _ �t� # iz https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN DSD -2021-92 Appendix B pdf " https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/CSD_PLAN_PARTS-Rockway-Preferred- Scenario.pdf Written comments against planning application: 20 Ottawa St. N Kitchener, On Page 6 Page 84 of 130 Currently there no "sky towers" in the area and there are actually not that many mid -rise buildings either but several come to mind that show excellence in their development and a balance/blend within the current neighbourhoods. The common element into blending these buildings is that they have a small street foot print but run deep, amply parking for residents and visitors, surrounded by green space and have a human scale. Rockway Gardens Village - 1420 King St. E 50 unit six -story apartment building 1522 King Street East Kitchener Eastwood Community - 1414 King St E 10 story condo underground parking 76 Sydney Street South Apartments KW Habilitation KW Habilitation 99 Ottawa Street South 22 Unit fronting onto Sydney St S Written comments against planning application: 20 Ottawa St. N Kitchener, On Page 7 Page 85 of 130 Sky Towers: Outside of lacking human scale, there is also a tendency to fill the building lot leaving little if no green space at ground level. Instead those amenities are several stories above and people living in these towers may feel a disconnected from the community. The King Street E Neighbourhood does not have a lot of public green spaces for neighbours to gather so unless the City is willing to convert Rockway Golf Course to a public park there isn't going to be many places for these new neighbours to meet each other. Table A: Approved/Purposed Builds King Street East Address Units Parking Occupancy Floor Floor Building Type Range space Space Ration Ratio Permitted Requested 20 Ottawa St N 464 343 464-928 1 3.00 26 story rental tower 926-936 King St E14 98 50 98-196 n/a n/a 10 story rental tower 1668 King St E 616 371 616-1,232 4 7.20 two 23 - storey rental towers 1251- 1253 King E 332 199 341-682 5 7.15 24 storey rental tower 9 townhouses 1001 King St E 486 286 486-972 4 8.27 30 Story rental tower 50 Borden Ave S16 350 350-700 5 unknown contemplate a multi -tower 851 King Street E17 Unknown Unknown unknown 5 unknown unknown 1440 King St E's Unknown Unknown unknown 4 unknown unknown Total 1249 2,355- ,355-4,710 4,710 Parking rates: I gave up on trying to make sense of this idea that people are going to be riding bikes everywhere, even during the winter months. Instead I think I would offer up that a great business opportunity exists for someone to purchase land and build a parking garage for all those missing a spot where they rent. I also think that it is incredible sad that one's car can be their last refuse when things 14 Page 385 #128 is Page 394 #e 16 https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN DSD -2021-92 Appendix- B.pdf#%56%7B%22num%22%3A1830%2C%22een%22%3A0%7D%2C%78%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70 %2C284%2C0%SD page 274 #512 17 page 448 #138 is page 274 #91 Written comments against planning application: 20 Ottawa St. N Kitchener, On Page 8 Page 86 of 130 get bad and they lose a place to live but now, even that won't be a possibility as they don't have a parking spot. Oct. 18, 2021 Knight said one man lived in his car and stayed in a motel for a few nights to sleep in a bed and take a shower when he was forced to leave his unit. The landlord sold the fourplex and the new landlord had other plans for the building, Knight said.19 I remember during the meeting of the committee of adjustments for 926-936 King St E When the debating was about the request for reduced parking and one of the members said "if they (tenant) wants parking then they can find another place to live" while at the same time stating that there is an urgent need for housing. Developers do not have us in their best interest; they are legally bound to maximize profit for their shareholders and investors. I do not say this as a negative, it is law. That is why the planning department and our elected representatives have been trusted as the gatekeepers and tasked with trying to find the balance between the current residents and developers on how the King East area will evolve. This is a new territory and we will only get one shot to get it right. There is still a lot of land at Charles/Borden/Courtland/Kent that will come onto the market as well as the Schneider property that will offer more than enough intensification to meet with the 160 residence per acre and support the LRT and other transit options, so why the rush to put up all these "sky towers" I end with that I object to the current plan for 20 Ottawa Street N and hope that the land does stay as 'Neighbourhood Shopping Centre' as it will be needed when the 1,000's of tenants move into the area. People need homes, not "units" Sincerely Ann Welch Kitchener, On 19 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/10/18/stop-the-unscrupulous-act-of-renovictions- says-kitchener-councillor.html Written comments against planning application: 20 Ottawa St. N Kitchener, On Page 9 Page 87 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Wendy March Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 1:57 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Sarah Marsh Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development City of Kitchener Craig Dumart, Senior Planner Re. 20 Ottawa Street N., Kitchener, Ont. Sir: We are strenuously opposed to the proposed New Development Plan for 20 Ottawa St. N., Kitchener. There is apparently another development, by Vibe, that is being built in the block framed by Ottawa/King/Bordon and Charles Streets, which is a whole other travesty. Somehow we missed the opportunity to express an opinion on that issue. Having a 32 story building plopped on top of an neighbourhood that is composed mostly of older, single family homes, is incompatible with the area. The Ottawa Street corridor, along with King and Weber Streets, are already heavily trafficked. That building will add substantially to the traffic volume. Now you want to approve development of the property at 20 Ottawa St. N. and add a 26 story building, along with 3 or 4 shorter multi storey buildings, adding 464 new residential units to our area. Traffic will be horrendous. As well, this proposal calls for a significant lower ratio of parking spaces to units. Although the City Officials like to think that everyone is suddenly going to give up their vehicles to take public transit now that the ION is in operation, that is just not the case. We have a smaller apartment building (3 floors) in our neighbourhood that was given approval for expansion with that same thought in mind. They were allowed to add units to the building (basement), without adding parking spaces to account for an increase in vehicles. As a result we have tenants parking on the street in front of our homes constantly, and sometimes for days at a time over a weekend. It would not be a stretch to imagine that the same situation is going to occur if 121 less parking spaces are provided at this new development. Residents will be parking all over the neighbourhood streets and walking in. While we realize that development is going to happen no matter what, we strongly hope that these plans are revised to cut back on the volume of units in, and the number of stories of these buildings. Towers do not belong in our neighbourhood. However, if multi -storied units are inevitable, a cap of 6 or 8 stories would be much better than 26 stories! Ultimately, an attractive development of Town Houses would be a much better fit for the area. Sincerely, Dave and Wendv March Page 88 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Rob C Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 9:51 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on development application at 20 Ottawa St N Hi Craig I am a resident on Onward Ave and was in attendance at the public session on February 24th for the development application at 20 Ottawa St N. I would like to offer the following additional comments. 1. At the meeting, there was encouraging talk from the developer to consider a pedestrian path through the site from Onward Ave, connecting to Ottawa Street and the adjacent properties, including the businesses in Eastwood Square. This is critical to maintaining a walkable neighbourhood. The existing informal connection already serves an important function on this site, and should be improved with a formal pathway on site. We look forward to being informed on further discussion on this matter from various stakeholders, and would be happy to participate in any site walks. 2. There is a need for community amenity and park space on this site that is accessible to the entire neighbourhood. There is an opportunity to consider this in tandem with the pedestrian pathway on site. 3. 1 would like to request a copy of the shadow study that was discussed in the meeting. 4. The building facade along Ottawa Street is very long, and should be broken up to improve flow and pedestrian experience along Ottawa Street. 5. 1 would like more information about the proposed commercial spaces on site, such as the location, unit sizes, and whether the commercial spaces will be secured in the zoning. It is important that ground floor units maintain sufficient heights for long term needs. There is a need for commercial units in this neighbourhood. Thanks, Robert Chlumsky, MASc., P.Eng. Page 89 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Geoff Schwarz Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 4:49 PM To: Craig Dumart; Debbie Chapman; Katie Anderl; Sarah Marsh Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1001 King Street E and 20 Ottawa Street North Hello Craig, Debbie, Katie and Sarah, am a resident in the area of both of these developments. I live at t in Kitchener. I want to say that I openly support and welcome the development of the area. What troubles me is the constant need to push the limits of the by-law. What is the point of having zoning by-laws in place if developers push the limits without any sort of meaningful penalty? As a homeowner, if I want to push the limits I have to go through the same steps and at a substantial personal cost. I get that these larger developments have greater hoops to jump through but it seems to me that the costs of those hoops are too low as they all push the limits. So what concerns me about 1001 King Street is the five additional stories they are proposing. What is wrong with the 25 in the by-law? That additional height significantly impacts the shadowing of the building to the surrounding community. The set -back limits of 20 Ottawa do not have an effect on me but it may on my neighbors. The reduction of parking spaces for both is fine for me as I understand that alternative transit options are present. I would fully support these adjustments if these developers were forced to ensure that 5 - 10% of the units were affordable housing. Why is the City not implementing a program to force developers to have a low percentage of units set aside for affordable housing? I don't want to see a couple of trees added in order for them to have greater footprints and impacts on the community. What I want to see is a more diverse community being able to live in these new buildings. So there you have it. No support for either by-law adjustment from my household unless they have a minimum of 5% of the units go towards affordable housing. Cheers, Geoff Schwarz and Ivy Holt i Page 90 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:12 PM To: Craig Dumart; Mayor; Sarah Marsh Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning Application for 20 Ottawa Street North Good evening, I'm writing to express my concerns with a development being proposed for the property at 20 Ottawa Street North. My wife and I reside on . We bought our home here in 1985 and have raised our family here. In 2005-2006 we attended meetings with the City of Kitchener concerning the need to replace sewers & services on our street. The decision was made to replace services but restore the existing boulevards in order to maintain the neighbourhood's unique character. In 2019 we attended meetings hosted by the City of Kitchener concerning the revised King Street East Secondary Plan. This Secondary Plan includes recognition that the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood is one of 12 established residential neighbourhoods "of considerable value and significance" identified in the City's 2014 listing of Cultural Heritage Landscapes. The City's Cultural Heritage Study concludes that recognized "established neighbourhoods" etc "are worthy of being conserved". The proposed development of 20 Ottawa Street North is literally in the backyards of the homes along the east side of Onward Avenue and the 26 floor tower will overshadow the entire neighbourhood. The proposed development would dramatically change the nature of the neighbourhood and significantly impact its culture (especially for those along the east side of Onward Ave). I have reviewed the materials submitted by the developer on the City's website and can find no mention of the fact the Onward neighbourhood is a Cultural Heritage Landscape. There is certainly no Heritage Impact Assessment. The only consideration I found listed for those homeowners most directly affected by the proposed development was a plan to install fencing and landscaping (I'm curious what landscaping is deemed sufficient to obscure a 26 floor tower?). There are numerous other issues with the proposed development which are unacceptable such as lack of property offsets and dramatically insufficient parking (24 visitor spaces for 464 units!) but it is the proposed development in its entirety that we object to. This property has been deemed commercial and has housed a series of automotive dealerships since the 1960's. Every homeowner in the neighbourhood has purchased their property knowing that 20 Ottawa Street North was a low-rise commercial entity. To change that now to a 26 floor high rise is unconscionable. There are a plethora of sparsely used commercial properties (south of King Street) in the vicinity of the LRT's Rockway Station which would be more suitable for this proposed development and which would not affect existing single family residences or adversely impact one of the City's Cultural Heritage Landscapes. I would suggest developments such as this be located there. We look forward to hearing that this particular development application has been declined Tracy Weir Page 91 of 130 Craig Dumart From: lean kenny < Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 3:06 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re Ottawa Street Development Hi I am a neighbour behind this proposal and my wife and I are against this from proceeding. We believe it will be detrimental to our neighborhood. Regards Sean Kenny Sent from my iPhone Page 92 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Beth Maclntosh < » Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 3:56 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Sarah Marsh; dalton@mhbcplan.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 20 Ottawa Street North feedback and questions Hi Craig, I live on behind the proposed development. I think the overall plan for 20 Ottawa Street North looks good and will improve the neighbourhood. But, I do have some concerns and questions for you: • Do the 6 storey buildings comply with the rear setback requirements? They look awfully close to our back fences. I'm concerned about the increased light those buildings will provide, and I'm also concerned about privacy. • 1 have looked at the arborist report, but I'm unclear if any tree trimming is being proposed? We love the privacy our big trees provide, and want to protect them. I wouldn't want trimming to decrease privacy. I'm also concerned that the tree root systems will be affected by the development. They are big, mature trees, and if they die, would not be able to be replaced. • The proposed drainage looks like it addresses our concerns about flooding. We already have some flooding in our yard due to the grading and the fact that the ground level of the yards bordering the proposed development is much much lower than the parking lot. Can you confirm that the grading will be towards the drains on Ottawa from the far back of the proposed development property where it borders my property to the drains on Ottawa? • We're concerned that the construction may damage our foundation with ground shaking. Will there be an inspection of our properties on Onward to record the current states of the foundations in case the construction does damage them? • I'm unclear if the wind report indicates increased wind to our property. Can you confirm if it does or not? My last question is, will there be a council meeting to discuss the neighbourhood concerns about the development? And if so, when will that be? thank you, Beth Macintosh On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 3:41 PM Beth Maclntosh le: Hi Craig, I live on Onward Ave, right behind the proposed development Page 93 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thank you for your response. Armando Damiao Armando D < Monday, January 24, 2022 4:53 PM Katie Anderl Craig Dumart; Debbie Chapman [EXTERNAL] Re: Application for development my concerns are actually for both but more so on the development on Ottawa On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:50 PM Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Armando, Thanks for providing comments with respect to the recent application. There are currently a couple of different development proposals in this area and I just wanted to be sure that Planning staff include your comments with respect the file you were intending to comment on (and we can include you in both processes if you wish). There is a proposal at 1001 King St E (between King and Charles) right at the end of Onward Ave at the AutoParts site. This is for a 30 storey mixed use development. There is also a recent proposal at 20 Ottawa St N (between King and Weber at the car dealership and behind Onward Ave) for a 26 storey development. In either case, we have received and acknowledge your comments, and they will be considered and summarized in the following ways: ® In the preparation of a 'What we heard' summary report; ® In staff's Planning analysis; and ® In a recommendation report to Council. Can you please provide me with your complete mailing address, and I will confirm that you are on the correct mailing list (or lists if you would like to participate in both processes). We will also reach out to you with the 1 Page 94 of 130 details of any upcoming Neighbourhood Engagement Meeting, Planning and Strategic Initiatives Meeting or Council Meeting when they are scheduled. Kind Regards, Katie Katie Ander) Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7987 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.anderl@kitchener.ca Mks To learn more about development applications, share your thoughts and understand your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications. From: Armando D Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:29 PM To: Katie Anderl <I<atie.Anderl@kitchener.ca>; Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for development Hello My name is Armando Damiao and I have lived on or (26 Years). It has come to my attention that there is a proposal for new development in Ottawa between King and Weber. 2 Page 95 of 130 I strongly believe that there is a need for rental housing in our region but having said that I am strongly opposed to a 30 story building in front of my house, and the added traffic that will cause in our neighborhood. We have young families on our street with young children. There will be blockage of sunlight in the morning that is vital, I am strongly not in favor of a 30 stories building in our quiet neighborhood. This needs to be discussed with further detail on noise pollution, traffic on our street etc Thank you for your attention. Am hoping that our City Councilor (Debbie Chapman) will agree with this. Armando Damiao Armando Page 96 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Josh Graham Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:13 PM To: Craig Dumart; Sarah Marsh; Berry Vrbanovic Cc: kali Braden Subject: [EXTERNAL] 20 Ottawa Street North Development - (Josh and Kali Graham) Good afternoon, Craig, Thank you for allowing us to comment on this proposed development which abuts our property of Our primary concern is the protection of our and adjacent private property trees, which provide privacy, noise, and pollution reduction features. In addition, these mature trees support the City of Kitchener's goal of preserving and increasing the canopy within this community. Please see below for more detailed comments and inquiries: Vegetation Management Report (Project 2021-33) — Pages L1 and L2 The note section of the drawing L1 proposes removing tree "23," which is on our property. Removing a tree on private property requires approval from the owner, .and we would strongly oppose this unless some mitigation measures were being proposed that maintain or improve what currently exists. The note section of the drawing L1 proposes "pruning of limbs of trees #20A -22A", which are trees located on our property. Please consider that these trees have already been pruned for the purpose of parking. Due to the size and maturity of these trees, it will be impossible to replace them if they are lost due to excessive trimming or root damage during excavation. Additionally, removing more limbs will put these trees at greater risk of being lost due to the injury. We respectfully request this be reconsidered and don't quite understand the need to remove limbs from a tree that overhangs a "landscaped area." Removing mature, healthy tree limbs to facilitate a "landscape area" seems counterintuitive and does not appear to support the overall goal of this area. Would you please provide more information on the rationale for this proposed action? The note section of drawing L1 proposes to remove the following trees: 24, 26A, 27, 28 and 29. These are all healthy, beautiful, and mature maple trees that provide privacy, noise, and pollution reduction features for the four homes along southwest Onward Avenue and the general community. Understanding these are private property trees located on the proposed development, it would be a shame to remove them without an extraordinary justification. I am assuming that this facilitates the installation of the "Retaining Wall/Exposed Garage Wall." Still, I would respectfully request City staff call for the developer to consider other options for the wall's foundation, including relocating the wall further onto the property, considering other foundation options, including helical piles and micropiles that are less invasive could save the trees. Another important consideration is that the widening of Ottawa Street to install separated cycling facilities leaves no area within the road allowance to allow tree installation. I understand that Mayor Vrbanovic and members of Council have expressed concerns with the limited tree canopy within this area and along King Street, which is the gateway to the City. Please reconsider permitting the removal of these private property trees if it is within your authority. Page 97 of 130 639833 Existing Conditions and Grading Plan — Drawing C2.1 A "Retaining Wall/Exposed Garage Wall" is proposed in the northeast portion of the development. Again, we are concerned about impacts to our mature trees but more specifically, from installing this proposed wall foundation. We are also concerned about the aesthetics of this wall, most notably the height. Could we please review a detailed drawing for this proposed wall? Considering it is proposed very close to the property line, do we have the right to comment on the design? Crescent Street (between Onward Avenue and the Proposed Development) Although not within the development scope, we wanted to inquire about pedestrian connectivity through the 20 Ottawa Street North property from Crescent Street and Ottawa Street. Although not formalized, many pedestrians traverse this property to access Crescent Street and Ottawa Street. Our neighbourhood regularly uses this portion of Crescent Street for parking, especially when the streets are full of Ranger game overflow parking. We also use it to access our backyard as our narrow driveway limits access. We would very much appreciate keeping this parking and access. Is there any consideration in maintaining or formalizing the connection through the proposed development? And if so, would the City consider installing a sidewalk on Crescent Street connecting to a path through the development leading to Ottawa Street? Thank you very much for taking the time to consider our comments, and we look forward to being involved in the planning stages of this development going forward. Josh and Kali Graham Page 98 of 130 Craig Dumart From: hsheard hsheard Sent: ' Thursday, January 6, 2022 2:54 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 20 Ottawa St N Kitchener. Development As a resident on r, I am in receipt of the Application for Development in m nei hbo and here are my comments for the CoK and the developer. Y g urhood, 1. The City of Kitchener spent a lot of time and energy developing the REINS Report, which deals with intensification in Established Neighbourhoods. Below is a statement from the final report that was issued February 13, 2017. The RIENS reviews the City's current planning approval process for new development projects in the established neighbourhoods to determine if RIENS ii Final Report February 13, 2017 changes are necessary. The RIENS also reviews planning rules that govern development that have been established in the City's Zoning By-law. The purpose of the RIENS is to develop a clear and fair process for approving redevelopment projects in the established neighbourhoods that will encourage compatible development. While the City does not want to discourage infill development, it does want to ensure that the right rules and processes are in place to ensure that new development is as compatible as possible with existing development. The focus of RIENS is to determine how to encourage compatible development by changing some of the zoning rules that current) a I and the processes that are followed when applications are being considered. Y pp Y I do not understand how the CoK can even contemplate allowing a 26 Storey condo building to be developed at this location, given everything else in the vicinity is single storey, or at the most, a 3 storey apartment building. ' 2. 1 understand that with the current bylaw zoning, the maximum Heigh allowed on this property would be 25Metres, that is the equivalent of a 6-7 storey building, which while taller than most buildings in the area, would be a welcome development. A 26 storey building is the equivalent of approximately 85.8Metres, which is a monstrosity and certainly is not sympathetic to the "Established Neighbourhood". 3. My understanding is, that the current set back allowance is 7.5 Metres which is approximately 24.5 feet, by reducing this to a 3 Metre set back, just under 10 feet, would mean that the residents who currently,live on Onward Avenue, would have a 6 storey condo unit almost abutting their back gardens, this is not right. Even 24.5 feet is bad, but under 10 feet is ridiculous. Page 99 of 130 4. The developer on this project is well known in the City, and has built some nice buildings, however I do not feel that this type of development is warranted in this area. There is mention of a "donation" (bonusing) being made to a charity to assist with affordable housing, I believe the amount stated was $250,000.00. 1 have two comments for this, number 1 - lets call this what it is, it is a bribe, a pay-off, lets make a deal and grease the palms. It may be a legal tactic but it is what it is. In my line of business it is a pay-off and illegal. Number 2. $250k is nothing, it wont even build one (1) two bedroom unit for a needy family and quite frankly, to the developer it is not a lot of money considering the amount of profit they will make off of the condo's, it just sounds good that they are making a donation. As for the three bedroom units they have agreed to incorporate into the build, are these rentable units, or for sale units, are they affordable for a family of four making under $65k a year? 5. With all of the above being said, can you tell me why, I, as a tax paying resident of the City of Kitchener, will have my enjoyment of life ruined, because a developer wants to build a monstrosity in my neighbourhood. Since I have lived on Rosedale, each summer evening I sit on my front porch enjoying the evening sunset, a glass of wine and talking to the neighbours as they walk by. This 26 storey building will now take away my sunshine in the evenings, as it will tower over everything. Not acceptable. 6. 1 agree that the CoK needs intensification development, I will even agree that 20 Ottawa St N, is an ideal site to build on, at the allowable height of 25Metres, 6 — 7 storeys. I also believe that the CoK should be working with developers who are more interested in building affordable housing, not outrageously priced condo's that the average family cannot afford to purchase, and ultimately destroy a neighbourhood in the process. Please think long and hard before agreeing to this outrageous development, I believe it is in the best interest of the "Established Neighbourhood" and the CoK to deny the developers request for a 26 storey building. Thank you Hazel Sheard Page 100 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Bruce Jacobs Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:55 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 20 Ottawa St. N. Thank you for your response Craig. Bruce On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt2kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Bruce, Attached is the proposed concept site plan which illustrates the building setbacks. The proposed 3metre setback is to the property line church property. This plan has not been approved and will be subject to change throughout the process to address public and staff concerns. A functional servicing plan was also submitted which demonstrates that appropriate water services and site services are available for this site and will not have any impacts on adjacent properties. Page 101 of 130 To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 20 Ottawa St. N. Hi Craig I am a resident - Bruce Jacobs. A few input concerns about the above development. - 3 m set back ,even 7.5M is very close to properties ( as I sit in my 3.2Mx3,2M office, ha!) - Will there be windows facing the set back? I understand that a 4 storey compared to 6 storey is more expensive to build in the long run. - Knowing the proposed site land is old wet land.(including end of Onward at King).The first four properties on Onward from King have more than typical settlement due to weak soils.There are various high water tables on both sides of Onward. On the high side of the street there is water 9 ft down. The existing buildings at Eastwood Square are on monolithic slabs. My concern , what are the effects when the sub grade supporting structure for these proposed buildings is put in place. How will it affect surrounding property water tables? Would there be ongoing sub water management? With these conditions, how safe will a tower be decades from now? -During peak demand for water usage once all proposed buildings are in place, will the existing infrastructure handle water supply and waste or are upgrades planned? Thanks for your time Craig. Kind regards, Bruce Bruce Jacobs Page 102 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Murray Armstrong > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:52 AM To: Katie Anderl; Craig Dumart Cc: Debbie Chapman; Sarah Marsh; Melanie Armstrong Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Development on 1001 King St E. AND 20 Ottawa St N. Hello Ms. Anderl and Mr. Dumart, I am a resident with a family of five i I wanted to express my concerns regarding the planned developments at 1001 King St East. and 20 Ottawa St N. I understand the need for housing, and for intensification. I also supported the construction of the LRT and understand that one of the main reasons for its development was to encourage development along its corridor. I am also excited about the mixed use plans, as I believe that is the best approach to development. However, the size of both these projects is beyond anything reasonable. 30 Stories and 26 stories are incredibly high buildings, and is not appropriate directly adjacent to residential neighbourhoods. 10-12 story buildings are more reasonable like the one being built at 926 King St E. at Borden. Additionally, the building at 1001 King St. E. in its current configuration will be almost 200 parking spots short relative to the number of residential units. That is only 59% availability! I am not sure where the cars will go?!? I know the hope is that people will take the ION instead, but that is a big shortfall, that will be a problem for the neighbourhood as people look for additional parking on neighbouring streets. Add to that, the plan to build a 26 story building around the corner at 20 Ottawa St. S. (approximately 200m away from each other) and the shortage of 131 parking being proposed there, and the problems will be compounded. Not to mention our neighbourhood will have 2 massive buildings surrounding us here on Onward, with no room for the cars to go. I think it is interesting to point out that while these 2 projects are in such close proximity to each other, they are in two different wards (9 and 10). Regardless of this fact, both building are in the same neighbourhood and should be considered that way. I can not support either project as they are currently planned. Please add me to the list of concerned citizens that would like to be involved and have a voice in the next steps for both these projects. Thank you for your time and consideration, Regards, Murray Armstrong Page 103 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Wendy March Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 1:57 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Sarah Marsh Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development City of Kitchener Craig Dumart, Senior Planner Re. 20 Ottawa Street N., Kitchener, Ont. Sir: We are strenuously opposed to the proposed Kitchener. New Development Plan for 20 Ottawa St. N., There is apparently another development, by Vibe, that is being built in the block framed by Ottawa/King/Bordon and Charles Streets, which is a whole other travesty. Somehow we missed the opportunity to express an opinion on that issue. Having a 32 story building plopped on top of an neighbourhood that is composed mostly of older, single family homes, is incompatible with the area. The Ottawa Street corridor, along with King and Weber Streets, are already heavily trafficked. That building will add substantially to the traffic volume. Now you want to approve development of the property at 20 Ottawa St. N. and add a 26 story building, along with 3 or 4 shorter multi storey buildings, adding 464 new residential units to our area. Traffic will be horrendous. As well, this proposal calls for a significant lower ratio of parking spaces to units. Although the City Officials like to think that everyone is suddenly going to give up their vehicles to take public transit now that the ION is in operation, that is just not the case. We have a smaller apartment building (3 floors) in our neighbourhood that was given approval for expansion with that same thought in mind. They were allowed to add units to the building (basement), without adding parking spaces to account for an increase in vehicles. As a result we have tenants parking on the street in front of our homes constantly, and sometimes for days at a time over a weekend. It would not be a stretch to imagine that the same situation is going to occur if 121 less parking spaces are provided at this new development. Residents will be parking all over the neighbourhood streets and walking in. While we realize that development is going to happen no matter what, we strongly hope that these plans are revised to cut back on the volume of units in, and the number of stories of these buildings. Towers do not belong in our neighbourhood. However, if multi -storied units are inevitable, a cap of 6 or 8 stories would be much better than 26 stories! Ultimately, an attractive development of Town Houses would be a much better fit for the area. Sincerely, Dave and Wendv March Page 104 of 130 Craig Dumart From: Craig Dumart Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:10 AM To: 'Cristina Gruszka' Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] neighbourhood meeting 20 Ottawa St. N. Good morning, a recording of the meeting will be available on the City's website approximately 1 week following the meeting. Craig From: Cristina Gruszka Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 1:18 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] neighbourhood meeting 20 Ottawa St. N. Hello Mr. Dumart, I am a neighbourhood business owner of the proposed development at 20 Ottawa Street North. I am interested in attending the zoom meeting but am unable to due to my work schedule. Is it possible to receive information regarding the meeting after it has taken place? This would be greatly appreciated. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Cristina 1 Page 105 of 130 Craig Dumart From: J. Stewart Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 3:04 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Sarah Marsh; Berry Vrbanovic; Laura Mae Lindo; Mike Morrice Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Application OPA21/012/0/CD - 20 Ottawa St. N., Kitchener, ON RE: Opposition to Application OPA21/012/0/CD (20 Ottawa St. N., Kitchener, ON TO: Craig.Dumart(c,kitchener.ca Hello, I am writing as a condominium owner of the Ward 10 property _ _ , .. _ . ,, . ... , — ' to express my vehement opposition to the proposal redevelopment per planning stated above. The Eastwood neighbourhood within which I live is a quiet and serene neighbourhood consisting of mainly single-family dwellings, which is the primary motivating factor in my decision to purchase my home here. This neighbourhood would be severely impacted by not only the visual uglification of the surrounding neigbourhood by way of impositions of tall structures on the skyline, but also by the unwanted population intensification which will manifest itself in many ways, including but not limited to: • Increased intensity of traffic in, out and through the community, in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to establish safe travel speeds and compliance with road safety regulations. • Increased traffic noise, again in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to ensure that vehicles operated in and around the community meet established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, resulting in further worsening of street noise already above a reasonable level due to traffic both along Highway 7 and within the community's own streets. • Increased general noise directly caused by the population intensification in an area already plagued by noise not only from the aforementioned lack of enforcement of established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, but by increased air traffic in and out of the municipal international airport (YKF). • Increased disruption by construction activities as the developer would implement planned facility. Page 106 of 130 • Increased crime due to the intensification of population in the community that this project will cause. • Erosion of our voices as voters and as property owners within the physical boundaries of this neighbourhood. ask that the City of Kitchener to: 1. Deny this application and prevent the project from going forward. 2. Withhold from use any funds from the tax base at the municipal, regional, provincial, and federal levels into which our community residents contribute, saving those funds from being diverted away from the neglected community standards enforcement already plaguing this community to further enhance profitability of the commercial interests of this property owner and commercial entities working with them. 3. Reject this application with prejudice so as to set a precedence to not further entertain applications of this nature in this community going forward by this applicant or by other applicants. 4. Not prove the ineffectiveness of democratic process by reviewing and subsequently ignoring this request. 5. BE BETTER in its proactive and EFFECTIVE informing of residents affected by proposals such as these (all residents, at least within a 1 km radius of proposed project sites). Sincerely, Janet Stewart Citizen, Resident and Owner z Page 107 of 130 Dumart From: Jay teasa Sent: To: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:50 AM Cc: Craig Dumart Subject: Sarah Marsh [EXTERNAL] OPA21/012/0/CD - Comments Hi Craig, I just wanted to start by saying that you handled yourself really well during the OLT hearing for 926 King St E. (Vive/Corley Developments). It is unfortunate that the staff report was not taken more serious) b by the Committee of Adjustment, and the outcome was not what I was hoping for. I will be very cur oh s trio ss judge, nor Y happens during the SPA for this site. see what Having said all that, please see below for my comments related to the above noted development application: Overall Comments: One of my main concerns with the concept as shown is with the provision of public green space, or rather, the lack of functional green space provided. Please refer to the internal document "Places and Spaces" strategy to give a better idea of the parkland deficit in this particular neighbourhood (KENA). This is one of the most underserved areas of the City with no public green space within its boundaries, and with each successive development application — see 926 Ki St. E., 321-325 Courtland Ave. E. (the former Schneider property on Courtland), 1001 King St. E. 169 B ng there is less and less green space provided, and fewer opportunities for the City to establish any substantive netwo r etc. greenspace. ork of In addition, when looking at this proposed development combined with other proposed dev is the potential for an influx of over 2000 residents within a 150m radius of Onward Avenue and King Street nts in the area there Without also increasing the servicing and amenities this area becomes devoid of any sense of community th East. at gets touted by the developers as an asset of the area. The addition of some retail and commercial at the base of this development is positive; however, the lack of canopy cover, landscape buffers and public greens ace is a t that the City should find unacceptable. And despite what is stated in the Urban Design Brief, there is very little oppooitunit for any significant landscaping within the interior of the site due to the provision of underground parking. There m opportunity opportunities to install soil cells and work with the structural engineers to coordinate the columns underground with be tree plantings above; however, this would be costly and in reality, not likely to happen without pressure from the Cit. This leaves the exterior of the site as the most viable option for creating any significant canop kind of si nificaless Y however, with reduced landscape buffers along many of the property lines, these areas al y coverage; likely support caliper trees. I would recommend increased landscape buffers along the property boundaries oies to allow f o minimum a single row of trees with adequate soil volume. And for the buffers adjacent to the existing low -riser at residential, these should be increased further to allow for the full allotment of green space required by the City. Finally, I have concerns with the potential for increased traffic along Onward and Borden. The traffic study provided f this application states that there is a deficit of 168 parking spaces (based on the new zoning). I think it i r or that not everyone living in this development would want or require a car, but it is also not fair to s fair to assume be no negative impacts on parking and traffic within the surrounding neighbourhoods. Onward is a traffic -calmed s r will where children living in the area play in the boulevard and walk freely between friends' homes. This area has seen first happens to hand what happens during Kitchener Ranger games in terms of the increase in street parking, as well as what ha first traffic when either King St or Weber St are blocked. Onward and Borden become the thruway for drivers in a rush to where they are going. Despite the plans to widen Ottawa in this area, unless there is a light going in at the entranc get e to 1 Page 108 of 130 the site, it will be very difficult for drivers to make a left turn out of this single entrance to the site. What happens when future residents decide it is too difficult to turn left onto Ottawa during their morning commute, so they decide to turn right and make their way around the block via Onward and Borden? The increased traffic when looking at the combined developments in the area becomes unsafe and unsustainable. The following comments are based on the Urban Design Brief completed by MHBC and follow the general for and order within the Urban Design Brief document: Section 3.1 Site Design: • Changing a site from an unused former car dealership to a mixed-use development does not automatically imply that the site is being enhanced. Enhancement of the site would include a design that is sensitive to the impacts on surrounding low-rise residential zoning, provision of high-quality green space accessible to future and existing residents (not leftover space as is currently proposed) and thought given to other associated impacts to the area including traffic and parking issues, visual and acoustic impacts to adjacent residents and provision of a comfortable public realm. From what I can see in the concepts for this development, the developer has not proposed to "enhance" the site. • Suddenly backing on to a 6 storey apartment building may not be considered an improvement in the aesthetic quality for some neighbours. o From what the concept.site plan is showing, there appear to be a lot of "dead" zones between the proposed buildings and the adjacent low-rise residential where limited landscape buffer width, screening and vegetation creates unsafe environments, while also being generally unusable for future residents. • There appears to be two loading areas which abut the rear yards of the neighbouring properties - one abutting the church parking lot and one abutting the southern -most residences along Onward Avenue. This is not an ideal site design from a visual and acoustic perspective. • The site is being constructed on a podium to allow for underground parking. Planting any significant vegetation, let alone trees on a podium requires a significant investment in the structure of the podium as well as soil cells. The only realistic way to get significant landscaping on site is to provide plantings around the exterior within the landscape buffers, which are currently lacking adequate soil volumes. • 1 do not see anything within the design brief that could be implemented to minimize adverse impacts to adjacent properties. ,• The internal spaces appear to be functional from a vehicular perspective in that parking is provided for visitors as well as commercial and retail users, and loading spaces are provided for. There is little in the. way of any meaningful public green space beyond some planters, benches and potentially interesting paving patterns. Building Design, Massing and Scale Design: • The concept site design does not appear to provide a podium for the larger 26 storey tower, although it is mentioned in numerous sections. I do not believe a 3m offset from tower face to streetscape frontage could be considered a podium. • This area of KENA is not a recognized cultural heritage resource; however, the homes are all close to 100 years old and the neighbourhood has a distinctive character - large central boulevard with established trees (one of the few in the City), large street trees (which are approaching the end of their life spans) and a variety of unique home styles. I do not believe that this concept adequately considers the impacts to this established neighbourhood. 3.2 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual 3.2.1 City Wide Design Guidelines Built Form — Massing 2 Page 109 of 130 • Ido not see substantial public realm opportunity in the concept shown. As stated earlier, the podium prevents significant landscaping, and the proximity to parking and loading, as well as the shadows cast within the interior of the site do not provide a welcoming pedestrian environment. 0 1 do not see a podium associated with Building A that would help to create a human scaled experience along g Shared Spaces — Landscaping and Lighting • Based on the concept shown and the proposed design being situated on a podium to allow for underground parking, I do not anticipate that there will be any canopy trees in the interior of the site. And due to a reduction in some of the landscape buffers there would be a further reduction in canopy provided. • Soil volumes and tree establishment can only be established by using soil cells as well as coordination with the structural columns supporting the podium - at great expense. Site Function - Vehicular Access and Parking • Despite what was stated during the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing for the development at 926 King Street East, I do not believe that it is realistic nor practical to assume that there will be a 50% reduction in need for parking in developments that are within walking distance of transit or a transit hub. A reduction can be assumed, but it must now also be assumed that many of these -residents will not get a parking space and will now need to park their vehicles elsewhere. The traffic study states that there is a deficit of 168 spaces based on the new zoning by-law. • In addition, it could likely be assumed that many of these vehicles will want to turn left onto Ottawa when exiting the site to access the expressway and Weber; however, this could be difficult during peak traffic hours which could lead many drivers to turn right onto Ottawa, right onto King St E, and right onto either Onward or Borden to get them to Weber, increasing the traffic through this quiet neighbourhood. • A single loaded entrance for the entire site seems unrealistic — residents, loading, visitors, commercial users and employees. If this is the final design then so be it; however, I would not want to see a proposed change where the developer asks for an access route at the rear of the site adjacent to the Rockway Mennonite Church. 3.2.2 Major Transit Station Areas Community Design • Stating that the development is compliant with required AODA regulations speaks nothing to community design. The Urban Design Brief also states that there will be a range of housing options. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that there are a variety of housing options within the development, including 3 bedrooms, affordable (not attainable) housing, rentals, etc? • I believe the design as shown creates an uncomfortable pedestrian environment with minimal functional amenity space beyond benches and some planters. • I do not believe compatibility has been addressed between the mid -rise buildings (131) and the adjacent residential. There is little transition between the rear yards of the residential and the face of the 131 buildings. And with little room for plantings or screening beyond board fences, this compatibility is lessened. Site Design • See my comment above regarding the term "enhance". This development does not "enhance" the human scale of the site for residents that will be backing on to the development. • Screening parking areas through landscape will be minimal as nothing substantial can be grown overtop of the underground parking. And landscape within the interior of the site will need to be of minimal size to allow visibility across the site. 3 Page 110 of 130 Q w Z 00 LL, 0�X, U U F. CN o Z F- 0 LLJ = U U N N w ~ ¢� o L) WQ N W z (� " L Lu Q 000 �Ow� LU(n U d z QZ�O �o LU LU Dw V w 0 �w�w �w w O> Gw = Lu LL Q J w o w % M L.LJ '0 0 '0 0 w x w i w af a Mumu �tNNNNNIINf� I ■r■,:rcIr� a . NN VP pr -A Wol /� M w z � w Q 0 O �o w IL Ll a��° -,°LLJ z o 0 LU w Q LU J 0 IL LuL.a j ff o 0 pofw 0w 0 0 N - i i w Q N N cn cn h - of o a W °ol w z Cv O� �o o0 LU R Q = Oz L, IL Q z� O �O J Lr t ~ W H W �, O Lu J Qw z Q z LU V J L.I.J o 0 0 o��w - a wQ Q w w r N N cn Q d h_ d'¢ o 0- y Y W Y L Ua>aU aaL)a¢ ;uuuuuu 2 E 2 E. u j\\\\§ j\\§ j\\§ \ _ / _ � <j >\0§\}\tu 2 \\\ /\\\ j0 LU LU j \/ §G §G//S{(! _ }:z § j\\\§ j\\§ ( ) (j\)# - %/a\) |((}) § § § § § § j\\\\§ j\\§ j\\§ \ � <j �\\) 2 \\\ /\\\ 2 k _ _ _ § j\\\§ j\\§ ( ) (j\)# j\\\\§ j\\§ j\\§ \ \: /±\ \ .\ 2 \\ \\\0 §�\\ \\ �U) FD \\§\§ V) m §) 0\ <j �\\) \\\ /\\\ � �\\� ,g: w (j\)# - %/a\) |((}) `C) §\\\} \: /±\ \ .\ 2 \\ \\\0 §�\\ \\ �U) FD \\§\§ V) m §) 0\ <j �\\) \\\ /\\\ \: /±\ \ .\ 2 \\ \\\0 §�\\ \\ �U) FD \\§\§ V) m §) 0\ O J W w = Z Lu Z CID 00 :LL, Q W < O O LU Q O J u'u O O O O O Q W O z CL W > z O a�O Dw = ; W e }^ - �� \ \ -ej 9 \ \ §_ ---- � � \} _ /_ '9 �R / /\ r}§ >}~Louf/�}~cc � lo \� j§}\§// N /2 }/ � §G§G//S{( � ! °: 2=T ,_z § N � \ \ §_ ---- � � \} W lo w z zo CID w �' � 0,0 Q J m u> W Y > O W d Llaf 1 z 3 aN OO d 0O Wd' T Oo O U O M a 000w -O LQ 0 wh NW d N d a L_ W e ° - - � ; j \ ( ( ( \ \ ( � W w U - 0 w � � o 0 0 'o 0 0 0 0 _ ° W - 4 0 x N ca a Q Q i i i i o�N o�LL i z w Q� � 6o Qo� �Ow� z ��°' Q ° �Q �O _ w w '0 �w w LU \0O >0 OwOp D:f 0 00 w ¢w0 N D:f N ca a Q Q i i i i o�N o�LL i W w u _ L� a � ¢ d o 0 0 0 s �i u 0 0 0 0 W a O u Q °o Q N z 0 �o CL Q z o z a �o C v� z Owl 0000� Ow�w wo ¢0wm N d N d cn L o - Wlo Lu ' o(D m UT O 30O �zQ O O w JoJ QO¢ LU Q u d N D:fWw 0 -LU Q w wo d'W N0 ca a € S Wlo 0,0 11 Ic IL O IL � wo000 u O L p0 h 0 0 D:fw �w 0 awv NW d' a W z H W W O LU < a0 afoL OO W Lr Q t 10 H z LuLu3� oWJ W �� > W 'r -w W O O O O WO W Lu Lu i ¢ O d D:f a I _ / _ { �} >�\(( UL j LL, IL / �_j§§ N/ � §G §G/S- { I Lu § z � W z Q � LU w '— o a�w �o LU r w' _ ~www <�CL w owe Qw 'o o w M W o 0 0 0 w oo a w '-'-' a i w i 4 d N d N cn N- d h of V J a W � � W _ / _ { >\0I- ,LU j0uaf> }\-af �joc }/ §G§Gn:2i 0 ! °: 23 § ,_z W z= Q o- LU w '— oa�w oo� LU r o 'o _ ~www <� D o w a w CL o w Wa o 0 0 af 0 w o Q w '-'-' i i w Q /1 4 d N d N cn N- o_ h o-' - � V J a XN qui - f 1 -! t u.� I _ / _ { >\0((}o LU j /}\ fI �}_j§§/ { -a /§G§GS§ z