Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-263 - Official Plan Amendment OPA21/011/V/ES - Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/017/V/ES - 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street - Innovation Developments Kitchner LimitedStaff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante - Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: May 13, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-263 SUBJECT: 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment OPA21/011/V/ES and ZBA/21/017/V/ES Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited RECOMMENDATION: That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA/21/011/V/ES, for Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited requesting to add Site Specific Policy Area 6 to Map 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) of the Official Plan and to add Site Specific Policy 15.D.2.69 to facilitate a mixed use development having 1,124 residential units and 1,750 square metres of commercial space with a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 11.7, be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -2022-263 as Attachment `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for approval, and That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/017/V/ES for Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1', attached to Report DSD -2022-263 as Attachment `B'; and further That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4), applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21 /017/V/ES. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the lands located at 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street. It is Planning staffs recommendation that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment be approved. Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site; o installation of 2 large billboard notice signs on the property; o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; o reoccurring meetings with a community member group; o Neighbourhood Meeting held on February 8, 2022; *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 192 of 520 o notice advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site, those who responded to the preliminary circulation; and those who attended the Neighbourhood Meeting; o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on May 20, 2022. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Planning staff is recommending approval of the requested Official Plan Amendment to add Site Specific Policy Area 6 to Map 4 and Policy 15.D.2.69 to the text in the Official Plan to allow for an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 11.7. Planning Staff is recommending approval of the requested Zoning By-law Amendment application to change the zoning from being split zoned (MU - 1 and MU -2) with special provisions 401U, 1R, 524R, 525R, and 526R in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `MIX -3' with Site Specific Regulation 341 and a new Holding Provision 36H in Zoning By-law 19-051 to permit a 3 -tower mixed use development with an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR), reduced front and exterior side yard, require a minimum amount of non-residential floor area, increase in minimum amount of street line fagade width and fagade openings, reduction in parking and a Holding Provision to require remediation of the site contamination. BACKGROUND: The City of Kitchener has received applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment from Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited (a company owned by DOV Capital) for a development concept that includes 3 towers with heights of 38, 36, and 25 storeys on a 4-6 storey podium that in total contains 1,124 residential units and 1,750 m2 of commercial space. The lands are within the `Urban Growth Centre' and designated `Mixed -Use' in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The proposed Official Plan Amendment is to add a Site -Specific Policy Area 6 and Policy 15.D.2.69 to increase the Floor Space Ratio to 11.7. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would remove the subject lands from Zoning By-law 85-1 and move the lands into the new Zoning By-law 2019-051. The zoning of the land varies, with some parcels having either Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -1) or Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -2) as base zones. There are also a range of special regulations that apply to individual parcels. The proposed zoning in Zoning By-law 2019-051 is Mixed Use Three (MIX -3) with site specific provision 341 and Holding provision 36H. Site specific provision 341 includes special regulations for front yard and exterior side yard setbacks, building height in metres and storeys, an increased floor space ratio (FSR), minimum non-residential floor area, street line fagade width, fagade openings, parking rate, and prohibition on geothermal wells. Holding Provision 36H is proposing to prohibit residential occupancy until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) has been completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Site Context The subject lands are addressed as 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street and are situated within the City of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). The subject lands are located on the northerly side of the corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street. The subject lands have a lot area 0.9 hectares (2.22 acres) with a frontage of approximately 87 metres on Victoria Street South and a frontage of approximately 99 metres on Park Street. The subject lands are comprised of 7 parcels that contain various 1-3 storey buildings, including single detached and Page 193 of 520 duplex dwellings, as well as commercial buildings containing warehousing, a printing shop, and other commercial uses. The surrounding neighbourhood contains a variety of uses including high-rise mixed use, commercial, and low-rise residential buildings. To the north, the subject lands abut the City -owned Bramm Yards property at 55 Bramm Street. Figure 1 - Location Map: 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street REPORT: The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with a 3 -tower (38, 36, & 25 storeys), mixed use building containing 1,124 residential dwelling units, 1,750 square metres of commercial floor space on the ground floor, with 3 green roof/outdoor amenity areas on top of a 4-6 storey shared podium, 699 vehicle parking spaces and 675 secure bicycle parking spaces located underground and in an above -grade parking structure in the podium. The principal entrance is proposed to be located at the pedestrian plaza on the corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street. Ground floor commercial unit entrances facing Victoria Street South are accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Three vehicular accesses are proposed; one on Victoria Street South, one on Park Street (primary vehicular entrances) and one on Bramm Street (service/loading entrance). The proposed development is located in close proximity to the Huck Glove building (now called GloveBox), which has been converted to office uses. The proposed development includes a 6 storey podium (base) which is sensitive in scale, massing and comparable to the height of the GloveBox building which is located to the north. Through the review and evaluation of the application, a revised development proposal has been prepared. The original concept proposed 1,150 dwelling units with a vehicle parking rate of 0.54 spaces per unit and a bicycle parking rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. The original development concept contained 1- and 2 -bedroom units only. In response to comments received from City staff and the Page 194 of 520 JOS 4 O�ksT SUBJECT AREA ��G' Al � `O M'CN�� T T �7 Z� c9f, Figure 1 - Location Map: 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street REPORT: The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with a 3 -tower (38, 36, & 25 storeys), mixed use building containing 1,124 residential dwelling units, 1,750 square metres of commercial floor space on the ground floor, with 3 green roof/outdoor amenity areas on top of a 4-6 storey shared podium, 699 vehicle parking spaces and 675 secure bicycle parking spaces located underground and in an above -grade parking structure in the podium. The principal entrance is proposed to be located at the pedestrian plaza on the corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street. Ground floor commercial unit entrances facing Victoria Street South are accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Three vehicular accesses are proposed; one on Victoria Street South, one on Park Street (primary vehicular entrances) and one on Bramm Street (service/loading entrance). The proposed development is located in close proximity to the Huck Glove building (now called GloveBox), which has been converted to office uses. The proposed development includes a 6 storey podium (base) which is sensitive in scale, massing and comparable to the height of the GloveBox building which is located to the north. Through the review and evaluation of the application, a revised development proposal has been prepared. The original concept proposed 1,150 dwelling units with a vehicle parking rate of 0.54 spaces per unit and a bicycle parking rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. The original development concept contained 1- and 2 -bedroom units only. In response to comments received from City staff and the Page 194 of 520 public, the applicant has amended the proposal to 1,124 dwelling units, a vehicle parking rate of 0.6 spaces per unit, a bicycle parking rate of 0.6 spaces per unit, and has included 3 -bedroom units in the proposal. To facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands, an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are proposed. The Official Plan Amendment would add Site -Specific Policy Area 6 and Policy 15.D.2.69 to allow for a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 11.7. The Zoning By-law Amendment would remove the lands from Zoning By-law 85-1 and move the lands into Zoning By-law 2019-051. It would change the zoning from the split zoned `Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone/Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone' (MU-1/MU-2) to `Mixed Use Three Zone' (MIX -3). The proposed amendment would also apply a new site specific provision (341) for minimum front yard and exterior side yard setback, maximum building height in metres and storeys, maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR), minimum non-residential floor area, minimum street line fagade width, minimum fagade openings, minimum vehicle and bicycle parking rate, and a prohibition on geothermal wells. The Zoning By-law Amendment would also establish a new Holding Provision (36H) to prevent the development of the site with sensitive uses, including residential uses, until the site contamination has been remediated. 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 Page 195 of 520 other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus and rapid transit and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced and are in proximity to cycling networks, multiple parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed mixed-use development represents an attainable form of market-based housing with a mix of unit types. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a mixed-use development that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make efficient use of the existing infrastructure. The proposed development will create more housing options in the Downtown within walking distance to jobs and amenities. 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 this amount of intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including Urban Growth Centres and major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policies 2.2.3 1 (a) (b) and (d) identifies that Urban Growth Centres will be planned as focal areas for investment in regional public service facilities, as well as commercial, recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses, that Urban Growth Centres plan to accommodate significant population and employment growth, and that Urban Growth Centres are to accommodate and support the transit network at a regional scale. 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; Page 196 of 520 ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated Urban Growth Centre (UGC), and within a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for both the Victoria Park Ion Station and the Central Ion Station. Urban Growth Centres plan to accommodate significant population and employment growth. The Region of Waterloo has commenced the Regional Official Plan Review (ROPR) project and as part of that work, revised MTSA boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council. These lands are located within the Regionally endorsed MTSA boundary. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City achieve density targets in the MTSA. The proposed zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. The proposed development directly implements Policies 2.2.3 1 (a) (b) and (d) which identifies that Urban Growth Centres will be planned to accommodate significant population growth. The mixed use development is also proposed to include several unit types that vary in sizes, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with 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 `Urban Growth Centre' and `Built -Up Area' on Schedule 3a in the ROP. The Region's Urban Growth Centres are to be planned and developed to accommodate a significant share of the Region's future population and employment growth. 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 proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.2 of the ROP as the development promotes higher density development close to transit stops, promotes an appropriate mix of land uses, and supports a compact urban form that locates transit supportive uses within a comfortable walking distance within a Major Transit Station Area. Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications or to higher density within the MTSA area and Urban Growth Centre of the Region as the type of high-density development proposed on site supports the Planned Community Function of the ROP. (Attachment `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the ROP. Page 197 of 520 City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community. Official Plan policy 17.E.12.6 of the OP notes that the City will consider all applications to amend the Zoning By-law and will provide notice of such application in accordance with the provisions and regulations of the Planning Act. Urban Structure The OP establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built- up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre (UGC), Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within the UGC. The UGC (Downtown) is the primary Urban Structure Component and Intensification Area. The planned function of the UGC is to accommodate a significant share of the Region's and City's future population and employment growth. Section 3.C.2.13 of the OP indicates that the UGC is planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum density of 225 residents and jobs combined per hectare and assist in achieving the minimum residential intensification target identified in Policy 3.C.1.6. The UGC is planned to be a vibrant Regional and Citywide focal point and destination and is intended to be the City's primary focal point for residential intensification as well as for investment in institutional and Region -wide public services, commercial, office, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses. The site is also within the Central Station Area and within 800 metres of both the Central and Victoria Park ION stops. In accordance with Policy 3.C.2.17 of the OP, the planned function of the MTSAs is to provide densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian - friendly and transit -oriented. Policies also require that development applications in MTSAs give consideration to the Transit - Oriented Development (TOD) policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the OP. Generally, the TOD policies support a compact urban form, that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience. These policies also support developments which foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit and rapid transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that complies with the City's policies for the UGC and MTSA. Page 198 of 520 Room to Grow WAX •� w•1 %N .!!iii• + •,� •g► Art*Alp Alp �, •tee' est go Y' OP.!. ,, r •� fj By area, 25% of Kitchener's MTSA lands are currently occupied by buildings. Compare that to the 50% of lands that are occupied by paved surfaces, which are primarily surface parking lots. This map shows a portion of the Central Station MTSA, with orange representing buildings and blue representing paved surfaces. Source: City of Kitchener Figure 2- Infographic of Current Land Coverage in MTSA's in Kitchener Land Use Designation The subject lands are designated as Mixed Use' (Map 4, Urban Growth Centre) in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Mixed Use land designation is intended to be flexible and responsive to land use pattern changes and demands and permit a broad range of uses and intensities. The mix of uses within the same building is preferred. Redevelopment of properties will be encouraged to achieve a high standard of urban design, be compatible with surrounding areas, be transit supportive and cycling and pedestrian friendly. Inclusion of commercial and retail uses, rather than solely residential developments, are encouraged to contribute to the vibrancy of the surrounding area. Lands designated Mixed Use have the capacity to accommodate additional density and intensification of uses. The primary residential uses permitted are medium and high rise residential uses. Policy 15.D.2.3 states that the Urban Growth Centre will be planned to accommodate and support major transit infrastructure, and that transit supportive uses are vital to the downtown. Objective 15.4.4 encourages the retention and support of a viable retail and commercial presence within lands designated Mixed Use. The proposed development contemplates 1,750 square metres of retail and commercial space on the ground floor of the podium facing Victoria Street South. Objective 15.4.5 indicates that lands designated Mixed Use shall be transit supportive, walkable, and integrated and interconnected to the rest of the City. The proposed development is located on lands within a Major Transit Station Area (800m of an Ion Station stop), and bus transit options (Route 20) are located directly across from the subject site on Victoria Street South. The proposed Page 199 of 520 development is also proposing to include a large pedestrian plaza at the corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street, leading to the primary entrance. The pedestrian plaza and entrance helps to create a human scale, and an inviting atmosphere for pedestrians and cyclists interacting with the site. Objective 15.4.6 speaks to ensuring that uses, built form and building design are compatible with surrounding low rise neighbourhoods. The proposed towers are to be set back from the street and built atop a 4-6 storey podium. The podium height is similar to surrounding existing buildings (such as the GloveBox building) and will act as a buffer between the street edge and the proposed towers. The podium will be actively animated, with glazing and storefronts at street level that help to provide a human scale and inviting ground floor street presence. As shown below on excerpts from the City's Official Plan, the lands on the opposite of Park Street (Victoria Street Secondary Plan) and the lands on the opposite side of Victoria Street (Victoria Park Secondary Plan) are designated as Mixed Use Corridor and are planned to be redeveloped over time and will serve a transitional function between lands within the UGC (including the subject lands) and lands developed with low rise residential uses. The subject lands are shown in grey on the plans below. VICTORIA STREET NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN FOR LAND USE MAP 16 SECONDARY PLAN Legend Low Rise Multiple Residential Low Density Multiple Residential Mixed Use Corridor Open Space r I Boundary of Secondary Plan L. 5 ....' Special Policy Area + Primary Arterial Road Secondary Arlerial Road Major Collector Road Connector Road Page 200 of 520 VICTORIA PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN FOR LAND USE MAP 14 SECONDARY PLAN Low ma=r: NeKpb=nwd 1rwWuh7sal SAXed Um Condo e A rdnry al Sea rAnrF Flan 4.r f SPeC780:'a" Areca i Pr"ry Menal Road Secare.rY Men.* Road WW Coftmr Road Scerrc-HWSNW Fbaad PARTS Central Plan F ,f The subject lands are located within the PARTS Central Plan which is a guiding document that made recommendations for land uses within and around rapid transit station stops. The PARTS Central Plan made recommendations for amendments to the Secondary Plans within the MTSA, which have not yet been implemented. Objectives outlined for the vision of the PARTS Central area include: • Promote redevelopment on underutilized lots • Support compact and sustainable development patterns to make efficient use of Central's land and resources • Support a range of services that appeal to a broad range of users to encourage a vibrant and safe environment • Support active transportation by improving connectivity, convenience, access and mobility to and from ION stops, destinations and amenities • Inspire and promote creative, high quality design through the encouragement and support of architectural excellence The proposed applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment seek to redevelop underutilized lots, support compact development with high density, provide a range of services in ground floor commercial space, promote active transportation with prioritized pedestrian design, and achieve high quality architecture. Page 201 of 520 Figure 3- Parts Central Plan excerpt showing subject lands area Urban Desian Urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's Official Plan. The design policies intend to achieve a high standard of urban design, architecture, and place -making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability, and economic viability. The policies acknowledge that urban design goes beyond the visual and aesthetic character of individual buildings and also considers the functionality and compatibility of development as a means of strengthening complete communities. The applicant submitted an Urban Design Report with the applications to outline and address the proposal in relation to the City's urban design policies in the Official Plan and the Urban Design Guidelines. In the opinion of staff, the proposed development meets the intent of these policies including those related to: Streetscape; Safety; Universal Design; Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and Scale Design. Site Design, Massing and Scale — The building base is situated to provide a strong urban edge to Park Street and Victoria Street. The building base provides active uses at the ground floor and encourages activity and interaction. The pedestrian plaza located at the corner of the site is intended to provide a safe, comfortable and functional entrance and provide circulation for pedestrians accessing the site. Loading and service areas are internalized in the development, away from the primary entrances. Access for service and loading is provided along Bramm Street. Universal Design and Safety- The proposed layout ensures safe and comfortable movements to and through the subject site, including walkways designed for universal accessibility. Emergency signage and appropriate lighting will address safety on site. Wind Study A pedestrian wind impact study has been prepared by the applicant to assess potential wind comfort and safety conditions on and around the subject site. Wind conditions are expected to be suitable in the summer months, but could be less comfortable in the winter months around the building corners. Areas on one of the outdoor amenity areas on the 7t" floor are also less comfortable but can be mitigated with wind control features. Further mitigative measures will be reviewed through the detailed site plan review process. Page 202 of 520 Shadow Impact Stud A Shadow Impact Study has been prepared by the applicant to supplement the Urban Design Brief. Through the public engagement, an error was identified in the orientation of the site and an updated Shadow Impact Study was prepared to correct the error. Staff have reviewed the revised Shadow Impact Study and are satisfied that it meets the minimum requirements (daily access to at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight under equinox conditions) regarding shadow impacts as outlined in the City's Urban Design Manual. Tower Design The 3 proposed towers are all classified as "Compact Point' towers as their floorplates are 850 square metres or less and have a length -to -width ratio of below 1.6. Compact Point towers are the preferred type of tower overall, and particularly in multi -tower developments. Each tower includes stepbacks and architectural effects to break up the tower height, and uses varying materials to articulate the elevations. Tower placement and orientation was designed to consider overlook and adequate building separation. The tower heights have variation as preferred to articulate the skyline. All 3 towers contain top features that offer distinct perspectives from different vantage points, and strive to achieve a positive contribution to the skyline. Tall Building Guidelines Staff has reviewed the proposed development for compliance with the City's 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. The proposed development concept has taken the guidelines and considerations of the Tall Building Guidelines into account in the layout, placement, and design of the proposed 3 compact point towers. City staff has reviewed the proposed development and can confirm that it meets the overall intent and objectives of the City's Tall Building Guidelines. Transportation Policies: The Official Plan recognizes the relationship between transportation and land use. The plan and policies strive to cultivate an integrated transportation system that is made more efficient when complemented by appropriate built form and density. Transportation policies establish a framework for an integrated transportation system which incorporates active transportation, allows for the movement of people and goods and promotes a vibrant, healthy community using land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a wide range of transportation choices viable. The subject property is located within a Major Transit Station Area and is walking distance to the Central ION Station and Victoria Park ION stations for access to Light Rail Transit. Bus transit is Page 203 of 520 easily accessible with a stop for GRT Route 20 available on Victoria Street South across from the subject site. The subject site has excellent access to walking and cycling trails, such as the Iron Horse Trail and the downtown cycling grid. 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 denser residential development in the City of Kitchener's primary intensification area (UGC). The location of the proposed building results in a built form that fosters walkability in a pedestrian -friendly environment, which allows walking to be a safe, comfortable and convenient form of urban travel. As part of the future site plan approval process, the design of the site will 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 at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street South. Additionally, secured and visitor bicycle parking is required as part of the Zoning By-law. Housing Policies: Section 4 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. Objective 4.1.2 states that the City shall ensure that the City's housing supply is consistent with our needs and in accordance with the Kitchener Growth Management program. Objective 4.1.4 states that the City shall locate and integrate housing opportunities with local stores and services that are accessible by active transportation and public transit. Policy 4.C.1.3 states that the majority of new residential growth will occur within intensification areas. Policy 4.C.1.6 encourages residential intensification, redevelopment, and infill opportunities in order to respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure. Policy 4.C.1.12 states that the City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city and within neighbourhoods. The proposed development increases the supply and range of dwelling units available in the City. Census data from Statistics Canada reveals that 55% of private dwellings in the Kitchener CMA area are single detached dwellings, whereas just 11% of dwellings are apartment units within a building of 5 or more storeys. Further, in Kitchener 26% of dwellings are occupied by one person and 32% are occupied by two persons, meaning that 58% of all dwellings are occupied by two or fewer persons. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types including, one, two, and three-bedroom units. The wide range of units will appeal to a variety of households. The development is proposing commercial space on the ground floor, which will provide retail and service opportunities accessible by active transportation and public transit. Page 204 of 520 Sustainable Development Section 7.C.4.1 of the City's Official Plan ensures developments will increasingly be sustainable by encouraging, supporting and, where appropriate, requiring: a) compact development and efficient built form; b) environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and construction practices; c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; 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. The proposed development represents a compact development with an efficient built form. Sustainable transportation options such as public transit and active transportation are widely available surrounding the subject site. The proposed development is seeking a parking reduction of 0.6 spaces per residential unit, and unbundled parking to encourage alternative modes of transport. Environmentally responsible building design has been accounted for with use of highly isolated concrete -based cladding, lower window -to -wall ratio in the tower to optimize heat loss and gain and energy efficiency, and double glazed Low -E windows. Nine electric vehicle spaces and 9 electric bicycle spaces will be provided immediately upon construction. 20% of the proposed parking spaces will be `future EV spaces', fitted with conduits to allow for future installation of electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed high-density development represents an opportunity to accommodate population growth with minimal land consumption and lowered infrastructure cost. The land area and financial savings potential from hig h density development can be seen in Figure 4 Financial Sustainability pal `h 1 1 1 # 1 1 1 0,0r+'r,� c I - � 1 I � .. ' I E t High -Density Low -Density People/Units 790/494 790f494 Land Area Used 0.3 hectares 32 hectares Linear Infrastructure 53m 4,400m Lifecycle Cost $265,000 $22,000,000 Tax Revenue $1.5m/yr (est) $1.2m/yr (est) Here we see the same number of people living in a detached subdivision and a high-rise. The high-rise uses 106x less land and 83x less linear infrastructure, while generating slightly more tax revenue. High-density development can be critical to ensuring a City's finances remain in good shape over time. Sources: City of Kitchener below. Figure 4- Infographic regarding Financial Sustainability Page 205 of 520 Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are split zoned in Zoning By-law 85-1. A summary of the current zoning is below. Current Zoninq (Zoning By-law 85-1): Address Base Zoning Special Provisions 146 Victoria Street South Low Intensity Mixed Use 1 R, 525R, 401 U Corridor Zone (MU -1) 148 Victoria Street South Low Intensity Mixed Use 1 R, 525R, 401 U Corridor Zone MU -1 150 Victoria Street South Medium Intensity Mixed Use 1 R, 524R Corridor Zone (MU -2) 154 Victoria Street South Medium Intensity Mixed Use 524R Corridor Zone MU -2 162 Victoria Street South Medium Intensity Mixed Use 526R, 401 U Corridor Zone (MU -2) 92 Park Street Medium Intensity Mixed Use 526R Corridor Zone MU -2 100 Park Street Medium Intensity Mixed Use 524R Corridor Zone (MU -2) 102 Park Street Low Intensity Mixed Use 401U Corridor Zone MU -1 106 Park Street Low Intensity Mixed Use 401U Corridor Zone (MU -1) 110 Park Street Low Intensity Mixed Use 401U Corridor Zone MU -1 Figure 5: Current Zoning on Subject Lands Page 206 of 520 The existing zoning permits a wide range of commercial and residential uses, including multiple dwellings. The maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for lands with the MU -1 base zone is 2.0, and the maximum FSR for lands with the MU -2 base zone is 4.0. The applicant has requested a Zoning By- law Amendment to move the lands from Zoning By-law 85-1 to Zoning By-law 2019-051. The applicant has proposed a base zone of Mixed Use Three (MIX -3) with a site specific provision (341) and a holding provision (36H) within Zoning By-law 2019-051. The lands are within the Urban Growth Centre (UGC). Lands within the UGC are within Zoning By- law 85-1 as new zoning categories and regulations have not been approved yet for this area. With the applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, the applicant is proposing to bring the lands into the new Zoning By-law to reflect current development standards and regulations. The proposed base zoning of MIX -3 would facilitate the development by allowing the multiple dwelling use, as well as a large range of commercial uses such as retail, personal services, and health offices to be permitted in the proposed commercial space on the ground floor. The proposed zoning (Zoning By-law 2019-051): Address Base Zone Site Specific Provisions All properties consolidated (to be merged into one lot Mixed Use Three (MIX -3) 341, 36H The applicant is seeking to establish a new Site Specific provision (341) to provide specific development standards for the proposed development. Proposed regulations for Site Specific provision (341) are below: a) the minimum front yard setback to Park Street shall be 0 metres. b) the minimum exterior side yard setback to Victoria Street South shall be 0 metres. c) the maximum building height shall be 122 metres. d) the maximum number of storeys shall be 38 storeys. e) the maximum floor space ratio shall be 11.7. f) the minimum amount of non-residential gross floor area shall be 1,750 square metres. g) the minimum ground floor street line facade width as a percent of the width of the abutting street line shall be 70%. h) the minimum percent street line fagade openings shall be 70%. i) the minimum required rate of vehicle parking spaces for Multiple Dwellings shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit. j) the minimum required rate of Class A bicycle parking spaces for Mulitiple Dwellings shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit. k) geothermal wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is a well defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump systems, geo- exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling; including open -loop and closed- loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five metres unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation. Page 207 of 520 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. Planning staff have evaluated the development concept and the requested special zoning regulations to consider their impact. The purpose of regulations a) and b) is to address the street and provide an active streetscape. The 0 metre setback would be represented by the 4-6 storey podium, and the three (3) proposed residential towers would be set back at least 3.0 metres from street lines. The 0 metre requested setback represents a decrease from the typical 1.5 metre required setback in the base `MIX -3' zone. Staff acknowledge that a road widening of 2.13 metres to 3.04 metres on Victoria Street South will be taken by the Region of Waterloo at the Site Plan Stage and will increase the width of right-of-way on the streetscape, which will provide wider sidewalks than those that exist today. The Region of Waterloo would also require a 7.62 metre by 7.62 metre corner visability triangle on the corner of the site to ensure adequate visibility for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. Further, the corner of the site is designed as a pedestrian plaza with large openings at the bottom (illustated below in Figure 7), which will enhance the streetscape. Staff are of the opinon that the requested regulation for 0 metre street fronting setbacks will maintain and enhance the streetscape and community character. 38STOREY u MECH iii ■ .. I�■ _129.25m ME ON II1■■■_; .I I���■■ IIS■■■=_. _ IMMMM I■■■■. III■■■ :v I■■■■loom� II,■■■'_ - I■■IMS ■ 541E■ OEM I■f'JF■ MEN N42'1 5'35"E .,.,, VICTORIA REGIONAL OA Figure 6- Site Plan Drawing showing Daylight Triangle, Sidewalks, and Pedestrian Plaza Page 208 of 520 Figure 7- Rendering showing Pedestrian Plaza The purpose of regulations c) to e) is to establish a maximum height and density standards based on the proposed development concept to permit a maximum building height of 38 storeys and 11 metres and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 11.7 . This represents a requested increase from the typical maximum of 10 storeys and 32 metres and maximum Floor Space Ratio of 4.0 permitted in the proposed base `MIX -3' zone. Staff recognize that the applicant has consolidated ten parcels to create a large (0.9 hectares), deep (90 metres from each street frontage) corner site with 3 access streets that is within the UGC and that does not direclty abut low-rise residentially zoned or desginated lands. These features, characteristics, and location within the primary intensification area in the City create conditions to support high density and tall buildings in an appropriate and compatible manner. Staff have reviewd the proposed design and can confirm that it meets the intent of the City's Tall Building Guidelines. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed massing and building height are appropriate for the use of the subject lands. The purpose of regulation f) is to establish a required minimum for non-residential (retail/commerical) space for the development. This represents a decrease from the typical minimum of 20% of floor area (which would be 20,550 square metres in this case) required to be non-residential in the base `MIX -3' zone. Staff acknowldge that viability for non-residential space is typically along the street front on the ground floor level where it is visible to foot traffic. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed 1,750 square metres of non-residential space on the ground floor will achieve the City's objective in promoting a compatible mix of uses within the same building and provide adequate commercial and service opportunities to the surrounding neighbourhood. The purpose of regulations g) and h) is to establish minimum street line fagade width and fagade openings. This would represent an increase from the typical 50% for both regulations required in the base `MIX -3' zone. Planning staff are looking to enhance the streetscape and urban design of the site by applying a more stringent requirement for fagade width and fagade openings than is permitted in the base zoning. This would result in a streetscape that is highly activated and will ensure that a greater fagade width and percentage of openings will be provided on the street edges. The purpose of regulations i) and j) is to establish minimum vehicle and bicyle parking rates for the proposed developent. For vehicle parking, this represents a decrease from the typical required 1 vehicle parking space per dwelling unit. For bicycle parking, this represents an increase from the Page 209 of 520 typical 0.5 spaces per unit in the base `MIX -3' zone. Given the location of the site within a Major Transit Station Area, staff is supportive of the request to decrease the minimum required vehicle parking rate. This is consistent with Provincial, Regional, and City policies that promote the use of transit and active transportation over personal vehicle ownership. Based on comments from staff and the public, the applicant has proposed to increase the minimum bicycle parking rate from 0.5 spaces per unit to 0.6 spaces per unit, to provide a greater number of total secure bicyle parking spaces. The purpose of regulation k) is to prohibit a geothermal well on site. This regulation was requested by the Region of Waterloo to acknowledge potential contamination on site and to ensure no adverse effects are caused by a geothermal well on site. City staff do not have concerns with the requested prohibition on geothermal wells on site. Staff offer the following comments with respect to Holding Provision 36H: Official Plan policies indicate that holding provisions will be applied in those situations where it is necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to facilitate the implementation of the `MIX -3' zone and Site Specific 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 36H Planning staff are recommending the following holding provision as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment: No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the MOECC advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. There are multiple environmental threats 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. Communitv Benefits Proaosal The applicant has provided a letter detailing the proposed community benefits package that they are offering: 1. Affordable housing contribution - The applicant has proposed to donate $500,000 to a non- profit, local affordable housing provider to support the development of off-site affordable housing projects in Kitchener. 2. Affordable housing units - The applicant has committed to providing 50 on-site dwelling units that would meet the definition of affordable home ownership as per the Provincial Policy Statement and the Regional Official Plan. Page 210 of 520 3. Public amenity space - The applicant is proposing that the proposed pedestrian plaza at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street South be publicly accessible, and that it could include public seating, landscape, and outdoor amenity features. 4. Amenity space for neighbourhood associations - The applicant is committing to providing the use of on-site indoor meeting space to be used up to twice a month for both the Victoria Park and Cherry Park Neighbourhood Associations for their monthly meetings at no cost. 5. 3 -bedroom units - The applicant has revised the original concept to include at least 13 3 - bedroom units within the development, with the potential of up to 30 based on market demand. Full details of the community benefits package can be found in `Attachment F'. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment to change the zoning to `MIX -3' in Zoning By-law 2019-051, add Site Specific provision 341 and Holding provision 36H represents good planning as it will facilitate the development of a high intensity mixed use development that is compatible with the Urban Growth Centre neighbourhood; which will add visual interest at the street level and skyline; provide enhanced landscaping that will contribute to the streetscape; and which will appropriately accommodate on-site parking needs. Staff are supportive of the proposed development and recommend that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Attachment "A". Department and Agency Comments: Circulation of the OPA and ZBA was undertaken in November 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 Attachment "D" of this report. The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by: GSP Group, August, 2021 • Urban Design Report Prepared by: GSP Group, August, 2021 • Community Benefits Package Letter Prepared by: GSP Group, April 1, 2022 • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report Prepared by: WalterFedy, August 31, 2021 • Sustainability Statement Prepared by: GSP Group, September 3, 2021 • Pedestrian Wind Assessment Prepared by: RWDI, September 10, 2021 • Noise and Vibration Study Page 211 of 520 Prepared by: RWDI, September 10, 2021 • Vegetation Management Plan Prepared by: GSP Group, September 29, 2020 • Arborist Assessment Prepared by: GSP Group, May 28, 2021 • Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study, and Transportation Demand Management Plan Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, August, 2021 Community Input & Staff Responses Staff received written responses from 100 residents with respect to the proposed development. These may be found in Attachment `E'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on February 8, 2022 and was attended by approximately 105 residents. In addition, staff had followed up with one-on- one correspondence with members of the public, and participated in regular meetings with the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association Development Subcommittee. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. What We Heard Staff Comment The applicant is proposing to provide 1655 m2 of outdoor amenity space on rooftop terraces on the podium. This space Victoria Park can be busy on nice will include active and passive areas for socializing and dining days, this development will make outdoors, and will include landscape areas containing large the park busier planters. The provision of outdoor amenity space on site will help to reduce any increased demand on nearby existing park infrastructure. Staff have evaluated the proposed shadow impacts as it relates to our standards included in the City's Urban Design Guidelines. The proposed shadow impacts meet the City's Shadow Impacts could have requirements and provide a cumulative minimum of 5 hours adverse impacts on the of sunlight during equinox conditions. A resident identified surrounding neighbourhood. that the applicants' initial shadow study was not oriented correctly; and as such the applicant revised the shadow study and staff reviewed once more to ensure that it met the City's standards for shadow impacts. Staff received numerous emails and phone calls in support of the proposed development. Residents expressed that more Residents support the housing of all types is needed in Kitchener and are welcoming development to potential new residents and neighbours. Residents expressed excitement in the revitalization of downtown and the return of the downtown becoming a destination. Page 212 of 520 Page 213 of 520 The proposed development contains 50 dwelling units that meet the definition of affordable home ownership in the Provincial Policy Statement and Regional Official Plan. The Affordable housing should be applicant has also committed to a donation of $500,000 to a Provided. local, not-for-profit affordable housing provider to contribute towards affordable housing projects that will provide deeply affordable units in conjunction with regional, provincial, and federal funding for affordable housing projects. The proposed building heights of 38, 36, and 25 storeys are consistent with other proposed tower developments that have been constructed or are proposed in the City's Urban Growth The height of the buildings is too Centre. Staff have evaluated the impacts of building height tall. such as shadow impacts, wind, and transition to low rise residential lands and consider them to be acceptable for a development of this type. The three towers meet and exceed the City's design for tall buildings guidelines in the Urban Design Manual. In response to public comments, the applicant has revised the development to include 13 larger three-bedroom units. The applicant has also designed an area to be flexible that can Three bedroom units should be combine one-bedroom and two-bedroom units into a three- provided rather than just all one bedroom unit. This creates the potential for 17 more three- and two bedroom units. bedroom units for a potential total of 30 three-bedroom units. The City's Zoning By-law does not regulate the number of bedrooms in a unit, but staff are supportive of the inclusion of more three-bedroom units to provide a greater mix and choice of unit types that could result in a more diverse pool of potential future residents in the development. The original development concept proposed a parking rate of 0.54 parking spaces per residential unit. The applicant has increased the amount of vehicle parking to a rate of 0.6 spaces per unit. Further, the development is proposed to be Not enough parking for vehicles is transit oriented and the provision of dwelling units without provided. vehicle parking spaces will encourage alternative modes of transportation over personal vehicle use. The location of the site in regard to access to Light Rail Transit, Bus Transit, and a variety of walking and cycling trails provides justification for the reduction in vehicle parking. The original development concept proposed a parking rate of 0.5 secure bicycle spaces per unit, which would represent the minimum for the proposed MIX-3 zone under the 2019- Not enough parking for bicycles is 051 Zoning By-law. In response to public and staff provided. comments, the applicant has increased the rate to 0.6 secure bicycle spaces per unit. The applicant has also proposed 9 electric bicycle spaces to provide charging and storage abilities for residents using E-bikes. Page 213 of 520 Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are recommending approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the subject lands to be developed with a 3 -tower mixed use development. Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020); conforms to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan; represents good planning and is in the public interest. The City of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre is the ideal place for this level of intensification. It is recommended that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: 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. Page 214 of 520 Victoria Street at Park Street can be a place of high traffic due to the fact that it narrows to one lane south of the intersection. The applicant has provided a Transportation Impact Study that has been reviewed by City and Regional Traffic on Victoria Street is already Transportation Staff and deemed acceptable. One of the bad, and this development will best ways to mitigate traffic is to provide transit oriented exacerbate the issue. development such as this proposal, and to reduce parking as this proposal has done. The proposed reduction in parking to 0.6 spaces per unit would provide relief from traffic impacts compared to if the development had provided the required minimum of 1 parking space per unit. The proposed development site does not directly abut low rise residentially zoned lands. The surrounding lands are zoned Mixed Use and Warehouse District Zone. Lands across Victoria Street South are zoned Mixed Use. Lands on The proposed development does Park Street abutting the subject site to the North and across not represent a good transition to the street are also zoned Mixed Use. The planned function surrounding low rise residential of these areas can support additional density and mixed residential and commercial functions in the future. Transition neighbourhoods. to the streetscape is provided with the 4-6 storey podium that wraps the street edges. The closest residentially zoned lands are over 50 metres from the site, separated by the Victoria Street South Regional Road and other Mixed Use lands on the southeast side of Victoria Street South. Some residents were not aware that a 3.0 metre+ sidewalk will be provided between the street and that the 0 metre Proposed 0 metre setback on setback does not mean that the building will go right to the street edges will not leave room edge of the travelled portion of the road. Staff explained the for walking and cycling public right of way width contains space for vehicles, infrastructure such as traffic lights and utility poles and sidewalks. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are recommending approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the subject lands to be developed with a 3 -tower mixed use development. Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020); conforms to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan; represents good planning and is in the public interest. The City of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre is the ideal place for this level of intensification. It is recommended that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: 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. Page 214 of 520 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional Courtesy Notice of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and who attended the Neighbourhood Meeting. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was posted in The Record on May 20, 2022 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Attachment 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 November 6, 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 100 residents, 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. Planning staff met with the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association Development Subcommittee on a regular basis following the initial circulation. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. PA 3 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Regional Official Plan, 2015 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • PARTS Central Plan • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 • Census Profile, 2016 Census, Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA, Statistics Canada REVIEWED BY: Stevenson, Garett — Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Official Plan Amendment Attachment B — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment C — Newspaper Notice Attachment D — Department and Agency Comments Attachment E — Community Comments Attachment F — Community Benefits Letter Page 215 of 520 Attachment "A" DSD -2022-263 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street Page 216 of 520 Attachment "A" DSD -2022-263 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street INDEX SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of June 13, 2022 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee - June 13, 2022 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council Page 217 of 520 Attachment "A" DSD -2022-263 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 —TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener. 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 the Official Plan by adding Site Specific Policy Policy Area 6 to Map 4 -Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) and by adding associated Site Specific Policy Area 15.D.2.69 to the text of the Official Plan. SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT The subject lands are currently designated as Mixed Use within the Urban Growth Centre (UGC). The lands are identified as Urban Growth Centre in the urban structure of the Official Plan. Planning staff are recommending to add Site Specific Policy Area 6 to Map 4 (Urban Growth Centre). The planned function of the Urban Growth Centre is to accommodate a significant share of the region's and the city's future population and employment growth. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated Urban Growth Centre (UGC), and within a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for both the Victoria Park Ion Station and the Central Ion Station. Urban Growth Centres plan to accommodate significant population and employment growth. The Region of Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review (ROPR) project and as part of that work, revised MTSA boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council. These lands are located within the Regionally endorsed MTSA boundary. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City achieve density targets in the MTSA. The proposed zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. The proposed development directly implements Policies 2.2.3 1 (a) (b) and (d) which identifies that Urban Growth Centres will be planned a to accommodate significant population growth. The mixed use development is also proposed to include several unit types that vary in sizes, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents. Staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the Growth Plan. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a mixed - used development that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make efficient use of the existing infrastructure. The proposed development will create more housing options in the Downtown within walking distance to jobs and amenities. 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 this amount of intensification on the subject lands. Staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. Page 218 of 520 Attachment "A" DSD -2022-263 Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment conforms to the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Regional policies identify that Urban Growth Centres are to be planned and developed to accommodate a significant share of the region's future population and employment growth. 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 proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.2 of the ROP as the development promotes higher density development close to transit stops, promotes an appropriate mix of land uses, and supports a compact urban form that locates transit supportive uses within a comfortable walking distance within a Major Transit Station Area. The subject lands are designated as Mixed Use' (Map 4, Urban Growth Centre) in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Mixed Use land designation is intended to be flexible and responsive to land use pattern changes and demands and permit a broad range of uses and intensities. The mix of uses within the same building is preferred. Redevelopment of properties will be encouraged to achieve a high standard of urban design, be compatible with surrounding areas, be transit supportive and cycling pedestrian friendly. Inclusion of commercial and retail uses, rather than solely residential developments, are encouraged to contribute to the vibrancy of the surrounding area. Lands designated Mixed Use have the capacity to accommodate additional density and intensification of uses. The primary residential uses permitted are medium and high rise residential uses. SECTION 4—THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: a) Part D, Section 15.D.2. is amended by adding Site Specific Policy Area 15.D.2.69 as follows: "15.D.12.69. 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street Notwithstanding the Mixed Use land use designation on lands municipally known as 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street, a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 11.7 shall be permitted. A Holding provision pursuant to Section 17.E.13 will apply to residential uses, day care uses and other sensitive uses. The Holding provision will not be removed until such time as a Record of Site Condition has been acknowledged by the Province and a release has been issued by the Region." b) Amend Map No. 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) by: i) Adding Specific Policy Area "6. 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street (Policy 15.D.2.69)" to the `Area of Amendment', as shown on the attached Schedule `A'. Page 219 of 520 M-'I-r-INUTA I- INUMJ-OdOU1 IVULIUU NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 146-162 Victoria Street South Et 97-110 Park Street Concept dra\Mng Mixed 38 Storeys, Floor Space Use 122 Metres Ratio of 11.68 Attachment "A" DSD -2022-263 Have Your Void Heard! Date: June 13, 2022 Time: 5:00 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.kitchener.ca/ planningapplications or contact: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x 7843 eric.schneider,,d kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener has received applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning by-law Amendment to facilitate a mixed-use, multi -tower development consisting of a shared mid -rise podium b storeys in height, with 3 residential towers atop of the podium each proposed to be 2S, 36 and 38 storeys in height, having 1,124 dwelling units, 1,750 square metres of ground floor commercial space, 699 car parking spaces and 575 bicycle parking spaces. 5 Page 220 of 520 DSD -2022-263 Attachment "B" PROPOSED BY — LAW , 2022 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended and By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-laws for the City of Kitchener - Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited, Innovation Park Kitchener Limited, 162 Victoria Limited and 1936026 Ontario Inc. — 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Number 73 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by removing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 2. Schedule Number 73 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 73 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on Map No. 1 attached hereto, and by zoning the Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 lands thereafter as Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3) with Site Specific Provision (341). 4. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 73 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 5. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (341) thereto as follows: Page 222 of 520 DSD -2022-263 Attachment "B" "341. Notwithstanding Tables 5-5 and 8-2 of this By-law within the lands zoned MIX -3 and shown as affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 73 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply: a) the minimum front yard setback to Park Street shall be 0 metres. b) the minimum exterior side yard setback to Victoria Street South shall be 0 metres. C) the maximum building height shall be 122 metres. d) the maximum number of storeys shall be 38. e) the maximum floor space ratio shall be 11.68. f) the minimum amount of non-residential gross floor area shall be 1,750 square metres. g) the minimum ground floor street line facade width as a percent of the width of the abutting street line shall be 70%. h) the minimum percent street line facade openings shall be 70%. i) the minimum required rate of vehicle parking spaces for Multiple Dwellings shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit. D the minimum required rate of Class A bicycle parking stalls for Mulitiple Dwellings shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit. k) geothermal wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is a well defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump systems, geo-exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling; including open -loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five metres unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation." 6. Section 20 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Holding Provision (36) thereto as follows: "(36). Notwithstanding Section 8, of this By-law within the lands zoned MIX -3 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 73 of Appendix "A", no residential redevelopment shall be permitted until such time as a Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks or any successor Ministry ("MECP"). This Page 223 of 520 DSD -2022-263 Attachment "B" Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to the satisfaction of the MECP." 7. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _ (146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of 2022. Mayor Clerk Page 224 of 520 --lZ Of >L >L >L >L >L Of >La (p Ln N d' (O Ln N d' (O Ln (O (O Ln d' (o d' (o col W m 00 Lf) W M 00 Lo W m 00 N W m a0 W m W J w -o 9 af 0 -Of z Z0 - Z0 - «gyp - Z 0 - Ir Z 0 - LL> E O 0 WQO� LL�QO� WQ �� WQO 0O O Z o N (� (n (n (n (n (n — (n (n U (n N W r7 ��—(h ��—(h =}�(nm ��— r7 =� Q IQ Z u,�vx z 0 Ox �, 0 Ox U) 0 ,->xo— I �, om0 x (n W—.0 OX N _ Q Dozes z ww�g z OLLJ f — z WW- 0— Z WOE z =�� �g z W fn X000 O X0CL— O X0CL— O X00 of O_ —0a - O_ 0aoa z`. O LU ui W�—W L ZW � ZW U W L2 z W w- w� Z Ow 0 \ LU a oo XQ-z > >O_z > >O_z > >U)zz > D0 z > XQQ_ cnz > — }0NN d' -N~QN d N~QN d' -NOOQN d' N~ ON W }H >N d Q J �maW d ZDaW d Z�aW d U)Ofd ZDa W d �mQ �W d O Z HLLI W U_ wg=W U_ wg=W U_ wg �W U wg= W U �� aW U � O z U m z0U) '� zww= �` zww= �` zw—LU(n0= �` zww = z0pw w= z W O wz=P U —Z W- U —zOf� U —z=W� U —zO H U wzof U� U N C Q m z—<U)—a LLI LL, �N<(n—a LLI LL, �Nguwi—a �Ng-juwi—a LLI �Ng uwi—a z-Q �(n-a m Q i a = Z �U=9, 0W-0D 0of0D oW-0309n oaf =oU U Q=o0 N a �z 2 O2uj 0) w0ui 0) w0ui w0wworn� wQw orn� p=W W0�H O =w D�J�w wow N��0XO� M��0 XON ���0dXp� L{���0 Xpw (OJ�� dXp0 Z Z Q 2 W=— N= <2E _— N= <2E _— N= <2E _ W— N= Q 2 af= Qf� N= Q 2 W= af 0 5 N= w �' WWOz���H LU0af H LU Oaf 3: WOWH0�3: w0Of 3H w0Z��0 3: Z �Q 2wa'O>—OQ>—> wa'O>—OQ>— w�O>—OQ>—> w�O>—ZOQ>— ��O>—>NOQ>—> �frO-->NZOQ>> LU �a QQLlrj --i QLiU>♦-J> QLl 00 P_<j QLL U>Q♦-J> QLl U>Ln♦ _<j W< U- N>NQ1-J> 0 2 }'Q (D p99 _ O_ Z 0 (n - - - - - -Z - -- - --- ------ L37n o W Z �v 1 Lo Cl) &: 2 LU �> ,[ Of z o� ��M '` Q Q uw 0 i �QP�^ m t- M�(D(�D 1 N Q J Q �_� W IL 1 �/ �✓ N (`nc 1 V (m� �J( V O ' O g Q N "I ` L>LJ n pp U } (n 2 Z V 1 Lo�N� w (7 ~ (7 Z LL (") eLL LLI Of (`") Z Z O QNB , LLL Qz WN O e W0 0 z 1 �ZXN O O �W0of N LL mss. �CW) is has tiSS SS (7paw r`� 1 Q h LLI z=QC) NrLL cli Lr) 1 /��Q' OU)OY 0 N 1 P` W N N 01 W- O N N W Q 2 O LU La �1� Q J W WIW Q U Q WSW b� b` d U) 0 LLI UIU o Y yly 0 HU Q ' — W Z Q Of LLJ d�O d sz ass �8 Z OU L BIZ N 1 W0 W W = WUQ 1 Zz(n� W ' w=N LLI 06 1 ' 0HQ= X Z O =Y(o U) 1 F- F: �Z O Z F-- 1 �Z�� NO w ` YWo U) 04 1 U)0 Z >X = 1..� <dL Q 04 0 = — W LL (n ♦- d OJ 2 0 Z Z 1- J J W ULLI ) Of z ggocn z0j NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING fora development in your neighbourhood 146-162 Victoria Street South Et 92-110 Park Street 'N Concept drawing M ixed 38 Storeys, Floor Space Use 122 Metres Ratio of 11.68 Attachment C RTCHEINER Have Your Voice Heard! Date: June 13, 2022 Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, find meeting details or to appear as a delegation, visit: kitchener.ca/meetings To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchenenca/ pla n n i nga ppl ications or contact: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x 7843 eric.schneider@ kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener has received applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning by-law Amendment to facilitate a mixed-use, multi -tower development consisting of a shared mid -rise podium 6 storeys in height, with 3 residential towers atop of the podium each proposed to be 25, 36 and 38 storeys in height, having 1,124 dwelling units, 1,750 square metres of ground floor commercial space, 699 car parking spaces and 675 bicycle parking spaces. Page 226 of 520 N,4#40r Region of Waterloo Attachment D Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Schneider, 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.regionotwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 226-752-8622 File: D17/2/21011 C14/2/21017 March 29, 2022 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/11 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/017 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street GSP Group (C/O Kristen Barisdale) on behalf of DOV Capital (C/O Steven Ruse) CITY OF KITCHENER GSP Group Ltd. on behalf of DOV Capital (Steven Ruse) has submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing a multi-storey mixed-use tower consisting of a shared mid -rise podium of 6—storeys in height with three (3) residential towers atop the podium. The three (3) residential towers are proposed to be 25, 36 and 38 storeys in height and contain a total of 1,150 residential units. The development also consists of approximately 1,770 square metres of ground floor commercial space. In addition, 667 vehicular parking spaces and 592 bicycle parking spaces have been proposed on site. The applicant has submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development. The Official Plan Amendment is required to permit a Special Policy to permit an increase in FSR of 11.6 to the Mixed Use designation. The Zoning By-law Amendment is required to rezone the lands from the Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -1) Zone and Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -2) Zone with Special Use Provision 401 U and Special Regulation Provisions 1 R, 524R, 525R and 526 R to the Mixed Use Three (MIX -3) Zone with site Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 227 of 520 specific regulations and special use provisions to retain the existing 1 R special regulation for the portion of the lands affected by the GRCA regulations, extend the 401 U special use provision for the entirety of the subject lands (relates to the Record of Site Condition requirements), remove special regulations 524R,525R and 526R and add a special use regulation for yard setbacks, the maximum height, storeys, fagade treatments, increased FSR as well as the number of parking spaces/dwelling unit. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following: Regional Comments Community Planning The subject lands are located in the "Urban Area" of the Region and are designated "Urban Growth Centre" and "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The subject lands are designated Mixed Use in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -1) and Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -2) Zone with Special Use Provision 401 U and Special Regulation Provisions 1 R, 524R, 525R and 526 R. Regional staff understand the applicant has proposed a Site -Specific Policy to permit an increase in the FSR from 5.0 to 11.6 and to rezone the site to the Mixed Use Three (MIX -3) Zone with special use and zone regulations to facilitate the development. The majority of the Region's future growth will occur within the Urban Area designation with a substantial portion of this growth directed to the existing Built -Up Area of the Region through reurbanization. Focal points for reurbanization include Urban Growth Centres, Township Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes (ROP Section 2.13). Transit Oriented Development Policies/Urban Growth Centres/Major Transit Station Areas Regional staff understand that the proposal is for a higher density development that is located within the Urban Growth Centre. In addition, the subject lands are located within 500-800 metres of the Central ION stop/Innovation District ION Stop in Kitchener. The Region's Urban Growth Centres are to be planned and developed to accommodate a significant share of the Region's future population and employment growth. Furthermore, the development will contribute to the minimum gross density of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare required within the Urban Growth Centre of Kitchener. Land Use Compatibility Regional staff acknowledge that there are lands designated General Industrial Employment within 300 metres of the subject lands. The lands designated General Industrial contain Class II industrial land uses and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) recommends a minimum separation distance of 70 m from Class II industrial land uses and sensitive land uses. The subject lands are located approximately 100 m + from lands that are designated General Industrial Employment within the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 228 of 520 Environmental Threats/Record of Site Condition: As indicated previously, there are multiple environmental threats located on and adjacent to the subject lands due to past land uses in accordance with the Region's Threats Inventory Database (TID); therefore, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines. The Region shall require a holding zone until such time that the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have been received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. In addition, please ensure that the lands to be dedicated to the Region for the road widening and daylight triangle are excluded from the Record of Site Condition. See the note below about Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments. Further to the above, the Region does not support the use of geothermal energy on site due to the environmental threats located on and adjacent to the subject lands. Regional staff require a prohibition on geothermal energy systems and recommend the following wording for the prohibition: Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is a well defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump systems, geo-exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling; including open -loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five metres unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation. Corridor Planning: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Stage: Transportation (Road) Noise.- Regional oise:Regional staff have received the study entitled "Victoria and Park Street Redevelopment, Kitchener, Ontario Noise and Vibration Impact Study" dated September 10, 2021, prepared by RWDI in support of the Official Plan and Zoning By- law Amendment and have no objection to the Transportation Noise aspects of the report at this time, however the noise study must be updated at the Site Plan stage. Regional staff will provide additional comments at the site plan application stage. Please be advised that the accepted mitigation techniques (e.g. building fagade components, installation of Air Conditioning and noise warning clauses) shall be implemented through a Regional Agreement at the future plan of condominium stage and incorporated into the design of the building at the site plan stage. Furthermore, the Noise warning clauses shall be included in all offers of Purchase and Sale and the Condominium Declaration(s). Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 229 of 520 Stationary Noise.- Regional oise:Regional staff have received the study entitled "Victoria and Park Street Redevelopment, Kitchener, Ontario Noise and Vibration Impact Study" dated September 10, 2021, prepared by RWDI in support of the Official Plan and Zoning By- law Amendment and are satisfied with the conclusions and recommendations of the stationary noise impacts of the study. The accepted conclusions and recommendations are: 1. The potential for vibration influences on the site due to the nearby CN spur line were evaluated and the calculated levels were below the acceptable limits. No mitigation measures are recommended; 2. At this stage, the impact of the development on itself and the surroundings could not be quantitatively assessed; however, the potential noise impact on both the building itself and its surroundings is expected to meet the applicable criteria through best -practices for acoustical design; 3. Regional staff recommend that the building design is evaluated during the detailed design/site plan stage to ensure that the acoustical design is adequately implemented in order to meet the applicable criteria prior to building occupancy; 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspector certifies that the noise attenuation measures are incorporated into the building plans. Upon completion of construction, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspector will certify that the dwelling units have been constructed accordingly; and, 5. The Owner/Developer shall be required to enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener through the future Condominium Application for all units in the proposed development to ensure the following warning clause shall be included in all agreements of Offers of Purchase and Sale, Lease/Rental Agreements and the Condominium Declaration (s): "Purchasers/tenants are advised that noise from the adjacent commercial and industrial facilities and the Metrolinx and CN Rail Layover Sites may at times be audible and might sometimes interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants." Stormwater Management & Site Grading: The report entitled "Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report" dated August 31, 2021, completed by WalterFedy is acceptable to Region staff relative to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage. The report notes that there are a number of existing sanitary services and water services within the Victoria Street South right-of-way. Regional staff will comment on the removal of existing connections at the detailed design/site plan stage. Regional staff will provide technical comments on the proposed storm sewer connection, sanitary sewer and water service connections through the detailed design/site plan stage. In addition, please be advised that this section of Victoria Street South (regional Road 55) is planned to be reconstructed in 2029 as per the Region's 10 -Year Capital Program. Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 230 of 520 TIS/Access The Transportation Impact Study and Transportation Demand Study (TIS/TDM) entitled "Victoria Street & Park Street Redevelopment Kitchener, ON Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study & Transportation Demand Management Plan" dated August 2021, completed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions has been reviewed and Regional staff have no objections at this stage (Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage). The subject lands currently have vehicular access to Victoria Street South via three full moves accesses. In addition, there are numerous existing accesses along Park Street, which is a street under the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener. The concept plan provided with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment propose a single full movement access to Victoria Street South and a single full moves access to Park Street, with a connection between both main access points. Regional staff have no objection to the access at the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage. Please note that more detailed comments relating to access will be provided through a subsequent Site Plan Application and the developer will be responsible for any financial and property requirements associated with the accepted road improvements. Please be advised that Grand River Transit (GRT) currently operates Route 20 along this section of Victoria Street South with existing transit stops in close proximity to the subject lands. GRT staff have also been circulated the application and will provide comments through the site plan review. Regional Road Dedication: Based on the concept plans provided with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment, a road dedication and daylight triangle is shown, but it is difficult to tell if the road dedication and daylight triangle have been shown according to the Region's requirements. As per the pre -submission comments on this proposal, an approximate road widening of 2.13m (7ft.) and 3.048m (10 ft.) along Victoria Street South and a daylight triangle of 7.62m x 7.62 m (post road widening) is required. Please ensure the Zoning By-law Amendment takes into account dedication and is shown on the site plan at the detailed design stage. In addition, the plans provided with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment appear to show a number of building features that are within the Victoria Street South right-of-way. Please ensure any proposed building features (including any door swing) are located completely within the private side of the property and are not included in the lands to be dedicated to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo through the site plan process. Site Plan Application Stage: Access Regulation A Regional Road Access Permit and fee for the proposed Victoria Street South access shall be required through the future site plan application. Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 231 of 520 Regional Road Dedication: The above noted road dedication and daylight triangle must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo as part of the Site Plan Application, free of charge and free of encumbrance. Prior to the transfer, a draft reference plan prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) must be submitted to the Region of Waterloo. In addition, a Phase 1 ESA (and possibly a Phase II ESA) shall be required for the portion of the lands to be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo. Please ensure the lands to be dedicated to the Region are excluded from the required Record of Site Condition. Housing Services: The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. The Region's 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan contains an affordable housing target for Waterloo Region. The target is for 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 to be affordable to low and moderate income households. Staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site. Staff further recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs. In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides, a mechanism should be in place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit (based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan), the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $368,000 annual household income for low and moderate income households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the $487,637 regional market area Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2020). 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: Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 232 of 520 A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual household income for low and moderate income $1,420 renter households A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent Bachelor: $863 (AMR) in the regional market area 1 -Bedroom: $1,076 2 -Bedroom: $1,295 3 -Bedroom: $1,359 4+ Bedroom: $1,359 *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2020) In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above. Should affordable housing as described above be proposed, please contact Regional staff to discuss further. Fees: By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the Region's Official Plan, Zoning By-law Amendment and TIS Review fees totalling $7,400.00. Conclusion: Regional staff are supportive of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment subject to the inclusion of a Holding Zone for the Record of Site Condition to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and a prohibition on geothermal energy systems as described above. Other Regional requirements as detailed in this letter shall be implemented through the future plan of condominium and/or site plan applications. General Comments: Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Finally, please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner C. DOV Capital C/O Steven Ruse (Owner) GSP Group Inc. C/O Kristen Barisdale (Applicant) Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 233 of 520 Internal memo Development Services Department Date: December 2, 2021 To: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner From: Victoria Grohn, Senior Planner (Heritage) cc: Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/017/V/ES Official Plan Amendment OPA21/011/V/ES 146-162 Victoria Street South & 91-110 Park Street Heritage Planning Comments L_ 1 KIl i i If \I R wwwkitchener.ca The subject lands municipally addressed as 146-162 Victoria Street South and 91-110 Park Street are located adjacent to 142 Victoria Street South which is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The subject lands are also located within close proximity to 163-165 Victoria Street South (listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register) located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) as identified in the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study approved by Council in 2015. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was not required as part of a complete application because the subject lands are not located adjacent to protected (i.e. designated) heritage property as defined by the Provincial Policy Statement. Protected heritage property within proximity to the subject lands include one Part V designated district: the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest, which includes the conservation of significant features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS states that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Regional and municipal policies and guidelines also address the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The Regional Official Plan contains policies that require the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The City's Official Plan contains policies that require development to have regard for and incorporate cultural heritage resources into development. Planning Justification Report, August 2021, GSP Group Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the Planning Justification Report and, with respect to heritage conservation, summarize as follows: Presence of the subject lands within the Warehouse District CHL and in close proximity to other heritage properties is acknowledged; and Clarification is warranted with respect to the Warehouse District CHL not being approved. While the CHL does not yet have formal protections in place, the Warehouse District CHL was identified as part of the approved 2014 CHL Study. Page 234 of 520 Internal memo Development Services Department L_ 1 KIl i i If \I R wwwkitchener.ca Urban Design Brief, Auqust 2021, GSP Group Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the Urban Design Brief and, with respect to heritage conservation, summarize as follows: • Presence of the subject lands within the Warehouse District CHL and in close proximity to other heritage properties is acknowledged; • Discussion around the redevelopment of the abutting site is included and there is presumption that the building at 142 Victoria Street South will be demolished. This has not yet been determined and consideration of this listed building as part of this proposal is to continue to apply. • Proposed contemporary design and application of materials draw inspiration from and respect the surrounding fabric, including red brick, transparent glass, dark metal panels, and inset balconies; and • Building is designed with a similarly scaled mid -rise base (6 -storeys) and tight positioning to Park and Victoria Streets, fitting the similar context established by the nearby Huck Glove, Kaufman Lofts, and Tannery buildings. Heritage Planning staff provide the following comments for consideration as part of the OPA/ZBA: • The total height of the podium should be in keeping with the height of the surrounding Huck Glove, Kaufman Lofts, and Tannery buildings. The maximum height should be regulated via a special provision regulation in the zoning by-law. Heritage Planning staff provide the following comments for consideration as part of a future Site Plan process: • Heritage Planning staff will require a 3D massing model and elevation drawings as part of a complete application; and • Heritage Planning staff and Urban Design staff will review and approve the elevation drawings. Page 235 of 520 City of Kitchener ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT COMMENT FORM Project Address: 146-162 Victoria St S & 92-110 Park St Date of Meeting: No meeting, email circulation Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment Comments Of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Steve Ryder Email: steven.ryder@kitchener.ca Phone: (519) 7412200 ext. 7152 Date of Comments: December 17, 2021 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments & Issues: • TIS comments: o Due to Victoria St and the Victoria/Park intersection falling under the authority of the Region of Waterloo, the majority of the traffic impact analysis will be deferred to Region staff for review and comments; o Given the lack of traffic control at Victoria/Bramm St intersection, it is highly recommended that the majority of parking should be accessed from Park or Victoria St; o Section 3.2.1— Access Location notes that the Park St access is 5m deficient of the recommended distance from an intersection (55m) at a distance of 50m; ■ Given the early concept design (Figure 3.1) of the proposed development and the Park St driveway access, it is possible to modify this access in order to provide some more distance from the Victoria St intersection; • Parking Study & TDM comments: o This site is approximately a 600m walk/bike ride to the ION station located at King & Victoria, as well as the future transit hub; o The o Transportation Services is willing to consider support for a reduced parking rate similar to the proposed rate of 0.54 space per unit, as noted in the Paradigm study that was A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 236 of 520 submitted with the ZBA application; however, there are several items that need to be clarified before any support can be given; o Currently, the proposed site falls under ZBL 85-1, which requires 1.25 parking spaces per unit (visitor parking is 20% of required parking); o The Parking Study notes that the development requires 1,085 parking spaces as per zoning by-law 2019-051 (CROZBY); ■ Section 5.2 outlines the breakdown between residential and commercial parking required for the proposed development but there is no mention of the required 0.1 visitor parking spaces per unit on top of the 0.9 spaces per unit for residents; ■ The development description notes that the site may consist of "up to 1,200 units" — if this is a possibility, the parking study should be completed on that basis (or should at least include analysis for that number in addition to the proposed 1,150 units as per the ZBA application) as the required parking spaces would equal the following: • 1,080 resident spaces, plus 120 visitor parking spaces • 50 commercial parking spaces; o If the proposed site fell under ZBL 2019-051, the required parking spaces (based on 1,200 units) would equal 1,250 parking spaces; ■ Class A (0.5 spaces per unit without private garage) and Class B (6 spaces) bicycle parking rates would also apply as a minimum; ■ EV parking would also be required; ■ Depending on the number of required Class A bicycle spaces required for non- residential uses, shower and change facilities may be required (section 5.5 of ZBL 2019-051); o Section 5.5 — Estimated Parking Demand (page 43 of PDF) states that the proposal includes 520 parking spaces at a rate of 0.46 spaces per unit — this needs to be clarified/corrected; o In order to properly evaluate the request for a reduced parking rate for this proposed development the applicant/developer will need to confirm the TDM measures that will be included in their proposal and will be required to enter into an agreement registered on title to provide said TDM measures (if applicable); ■ Measures listed in Section 5.4 of the study were noted as considerations for the development; ■ The TDM Checklist provided as Appendix J in the Paradigm study indicates several tangible measures that would help justify a reduction in vehicle parking: • Additional, secured (Class A) bicycle parking above the minimum rate (0.5 spaces per unit); • Additional space to shower & change facilities for employees; • Car share & Ride share spaces (have any preliminary discussions taken place with a car share provider at this time?); • Subsidized transit passes (amount, duration?); A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 237 of 520 • Unbundled parking ■ These measures need to be confirmed at this stage in order to provide justification for the proposed reduction in parking; o Long-term bicycle storage/parking: ■ TDM Checklist option allows for some reduction in parking for going above the required bicycle parking (which is 10% of required parking for total site under ZBL 85-1) — however, given the proposed reduction in parking is below the minimums required under ZBL 2019-051, the Class A bicycle parking minimum from ZBL 2019-051 should be met before the TDM Checklist provisions come into place (ie. Class A spaces should be a minimum of 0.5 spaces per unit before Checklist provision is calculated) ■ It is strongly recommended that the developer considers provision of dedicated space to accommodate users of larger bicycles, such as a -bikes and cargo bikes; ■ Providing electrical outlets to charge a -bikes is encouraged to promote the use of such modes of travel; ■ Strong consideration of how residents will enter and exit secured bicycle parking areas with ease and convenience should be given during the design of this site; ■ Providing easy and unobstructed access to and from the site for cyclists will encourage residents to utilize this mode of travel rather than rely on a vehicle; ■ Secured access rooms provide assurance that residents bicycles are safely stored; ■ Push-button (secured) access with wider doors to accommodate different styles of bicycles is strongly recommended; ■ Details of the bicycle storage facilities will be required as part of the submissions for a complete site plan application in the future; o Given the location of the site, visitor parking needs to be provided on-site given that there is insufficient supply of short-term parking options in close proximity to the proposed development; ■ The Bramm St Yards parking lot (City -owned and operated) currently offers paid, hourly parking but cannot be counted on long-term to provide parking; ■ On -street parking should not be considered a viable source for visitor parking for a development of this nature; ■ Visitor parking considerations need to be included in any updates/revisions to the parking study o Applicant to provide revisions/updates/clarifications regarding the above comments before Transportation Services can support the proposed parking reduction requested through this ZBA application; 2. Plans. Studies and Resorts to submit as part of a complete Plannine Act Application: • N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 238 of 520 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: • None 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • N/A 5. Anticipated Fees: • N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 239 of 520 A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 240 of 520 City of Kitchener ZONING BYLAW AND OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT COMMENTS Project Address:146-162 Victoria St S - 92-110 Park St Application Type: ZBA/OPA Comments of:Urban Design Commenter's Name: Sandro Bassanese Email: sandro.bassanese@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7305 Date of Comments: January 17, 2022 ❑X I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments & Issues: The following comments relate to the documents provided in support of the above noted application: Urban Design Brief: Urban Design staff have reviewed the design brief and provide the following comments: I reviewed the tower massing proposal with Adam Clark who provided comments on the previous application and would like to convey that the majority of staff comments related to massing, and site layout have been taken into consideration. Staff are very appreciative of this and are looking forward to working with the consultant team and applicant to further refine and improve the site design and architecture. Design Overview and Response: Base design: The base design as depicted in the urban design brief provides good, activated space at the street level and generous setbacks along the corner of Park and Victoria St. The primary view between towers B and C (see image below) to the site is to be considered as a focal point and a potential public art location or have upgraded cladding as it is above grade parking. Vision glass into the parking garage is not acceptable. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 241 of 520 II I Illlso loom ■- ■IOII swa +r + r 1111111�r IIII M- �Ip11--- . -- - Am m is t a i 11111�r IgA1 1-I■�"'I""u'� Wr err rr � r r n:�na__iu■u _ y, � �■ 1 IN 1111 .....R*!! IN long l9! --�■ _ _ i 1 iiG 11 ■ p i �_ 111 11Gi Ni .� n o� as— n 111 Ilo ---- X11 1_ fin Illl !11 H oiif�'Lr : :� .■.■ moi: i s:� .po :i: yin :�� ��� �� �.� IIIIIIIIIII�M,— 111 1111 1111 11111 11llr IIf1 lief �� W ■�.■ ■■r ■ Rs9a[vTw i�PaE114wfE WEifJL x Separation/Overlook: Separation distances as well as overlook generally meet the intent of the City of Kitchener Tall Building Design Guidelines (TBDG). The applicant has made sufficient changes to the design (changes include tower locations and orientation, narrowing of floor plates on upper portions of the tower) and placement of the towers to meet the intent of the tall building design guidelines on site. Staff will work with the applicant to review balcony placement and design to further address issues of overlook on site as the site plan process progresses. Off-site separation to Tower A will be addressed through a limiting distance agreement (as discussed and agreed to by planning staff) to ensure that the intent of the TBDG is met with any future development on the adjacent property. Details of how air rights will be secured are to be provided to staff for review. As well the applicant is to provide a draft of the legal agreement describing how air rights will be addressed as part of the site plan approval process. Offsite separation to tower B is sufficient to allow a potential midrise form to develop as the site is too small to support a tower form. This has been reviewed and confirmed by staff internally. Overlook is mostly mitigated successfully between the towers on site. Staff request that a further shift of tower A be considered to bring it into closer alignment with tower B (see image below). ERP B50 SM PLn' UPPER bffCH IND RP NITY f ZGROUND PARKIWG) ROCF LEVEL 912 W'I0M EJNttI it aw TOWEF x WCH IME- C k MUSMPLATE.d} � W'K� ouraaoR nMEv�Tv x i x •. E5T0REV 1 _ Xn.9(vn In\ - x 4 9MIG a�aa A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 242 of 520 Although not crucial this shift would not impact tower A or B and further reduce overlap to any future proposed development on the adjacent site. Amenity Areas: The applicant is advised that common roof top amenity areas are to be designed to ensure sitting wind speeds during spring and summer time periods and standing wind speeds during fall and winter. This is to be confirmed through detailed wind tunnel analysis as part of a revised wind study (further comments on the wind study will be provided in the next section of comments). The noise study provided has confirmed that roof top amenity areas fall within the acceptable noise criteria as per RMOW standards. Staff request that further noise mitigation be explored at the North and East corners of the podium amenity areas (as identified in the noise study) to further reduce noise impacts as both areas are close to acceptable noise limits. At grade proposed streetscape elements (trees within the ROW and streetscape elements) are to be reviewed and coordinated with Regional and Parks and operations staff. The applicant is advised to prepare a composite utilities plan as the development progresses through the site plan process. The applicant is also advised to contact Urban Forestry and Parks and Operations staff to coordinate required infrastructure (i.e., silva cells, raised planters, irrigation etc.) as well as maintenance agreements to facilitate planting in the Regional and City owned rights of way. Shadow Analysis: The shadow analysis provided meets criteria for 5 cumulative hours of sun on all time periods save and accept December 21ST. Due to limited impacts (approximately 6 residences) in the December time period coupled with existing shadows cast by vegetation and existing structures coupled with limited rear yard use during the winter time period the impacts are deemed acceptable. Wind Study: The proposed conditions at ground level are to be brought to a sitting condition for summer periods and standing strolling during winter conditions. The applicant is advised that a detailed wind tunnel analysis is to be provided in combination with a revised wind study to inform building design through the site plan process. The applicant is also advised to provide sufficient sensors in the rooftop amenity locations to insure an accurate representation of wind speed impacts. Tree Inventory Plan: Prior to any works (including but not limited to: pruning, grading, shoring, fence installation, demolition etc.) being undertaken that may impact trees in common ownership or off property consent from adjacent property owners is to be provided by the applicant to City staff for review. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 243 of 520 There are numerous street trees and city owned trees that will be removed and due to the proposed development application. The applicant is to contact Park's and Operations staff (Lenore Ross, lenore.ross@kitchener.ca) to confirm compensation planting rates, locations, or cash in lieu amount. The property line is to be clearly defined on the tree management plan and confirmation is to be provided by the applicant that all trunks and driplines have been accurately survey and located on the plan. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 244 of 520 Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.J. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax:519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: Eric Schneider City of Kitchener DATE: FILE: November 9, 2021 OPA - 146-162 Victoria St S and 92-110 Park St RE: Official Plan Amendment Application OP21 -011 -V-ES Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application ZBA21-017-V-ES 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street Innovations Developments Kitchener GRCA COMMENT*: The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has no concerns with the proposal. BACKGROUND: 1. Resource Issues: Information currently available at our office indicates that the subject lands contain the Schneider Creek / Victoria Lake floodplain. 2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications: Due to the presence of the floodplain, the GRCA regulates a portion of the property under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation). Any future development within the regulated area (as shown in yellow on the attached map) will require a permit from the GRCA pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The floodplain in this location is in the flood fringe portion of a designated Two -Zone Policy Area. Provincial, municipal and GRCA policy allows for development provided that the applicant demonstrates that it satisfies all policy requirements outlined in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan. The topographic survey (Van Harten Surveying, revised September 28, 2020) demonstrates that the floodplain minimally affects the subject lands' southeast edge. Page 1 of 2 Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Page 245 of 520 Based on the functional grading plan (WalterFedy, revised August 31, 2021), the site will be floodproofed. As such, we have no concerns with this application. 3. Review Fees: This application is considered a minor official plan / zoning bylaw amendment, and in accordance with the GRCA's 2021 Plan Review Fee Schedule, the applicable fee is $430. We will send an invoice to the applicant. A separate fee will be required for a GRCA permit. We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 519-621-2763 ext. 2292 or theywood(a)grandriver. ca. Sincerely, Trevor Heywood Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority Attachment C.C. Kevin Muir, GSP Group Page 2 of 2 Page 246 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Mike Seiling Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 10:15 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) Attachments: Agency Circulation Letter.pdf Building comments; Aside from a Record of Site Condition (RSC) will be required for this development as former gas station site, Building has no additional comments at this early stage of the development. A RSC may already be completed for this site. Mike From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, November 4, 202111:07 AM To: CNR <proximity@cn.ca>; _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 (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster -Pengelly <cfosterpengelly@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: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) Please see attached - additional documentation available in ShareFile. Comments or questions should be directed to Eric Schneider, 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 christine.kompter(cDkitchener.ca Page 247 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Niall Melanson Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 1:35 PM To: 'Josh Zehr' Cc: Eric Schneider; Tyler Keller; Angela Mick Subject: RE: 146-162 Victoria St S & 92-110 Park St, ZBA21/017/V/ES & OP21/011/V/ES - FSR Engineering Comments Good afternoon Josh The revisions are acceptable. Eric — Please take this email as notice that Engineering and KU can provide our clearances for the ZBA & OPA. Cheers Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Engineering Technologist I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 Ext. 7133 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 niall.melanson@kitchener.ca From: Josh Zehr <jzehr@walterfedy.com> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 20212:02 PM To: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Cc: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>; Tyler Keller <tkeller@walterfedy.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 146-162 Victoria St S & 92-110 Park St, ZBA21/017/V/ES & OP21/011/V/ES - FSR Engineering Comments Hi Niall, Thanks for the compliment. I have passed it along to our project team as well. We went ahead and just made the minor revisions quickly to the report and plans. Attached is the revised set for your sign -off on the zone change. We will take a closer look at the water servicing during the detailed design too in coordination with the mechanical consultant to ensure we provide the best solution there in the long run that works both internally to the building and externally through the spiderweb that is Victoria Street. Let us know if you have any additional comments. Thanks again, Josh Josh Zehr, P.Eng., CAN-CISEC Project Manager,Civil WALTERFEDY 675 Queen St. S., Suite 111 Kitchener, ON N2M 1A1 519.576.2150 x407 Page 248 of 520 WalterFedy and AEC Developments have taken the step to protect our employees and clients and have closed our offices. Employees will be working remotely and you can continue to connect with us via phone and email. Although our office is closed, we will still be working regular office hours to best serve our clients. MOM iIULLI W li[61VM The information contained in this email is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Its contents (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, disclose, disseminate, copy or print its contents. If you receive this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and permanently delete the message. Information, opinions or conclusions contained in this message that do not relate to the official business of WalterFedy will be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. From: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Sent: November 12, 202110:19 AM To: Josh Zehr <izehr@walterfedy.com> Cc: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: 146-162 Victoria St S & 92-110 Park St, ZBA21/017/V/ES & OP21/011/V/ES - FSR Engineering Comments Good morning Josh Great work on the FSR but I would request the following minor revisions per the attached. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Engineering Technologist I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 Ext. 7133 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 niall.melanson(@kitchener.ca Page 249 of 520 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street Application Type: Official Plan Amendment OP21/011/V/ES Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/017/V/ES Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) — City of Kitchener Commenter's name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.mussel man@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7068 Written Comments Due: December 6, 2021 Date of comments: November 30, 2021 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application: • 92-110 Park Street & 146-162 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application, Sustainability Statement. September 3, 2021. GSP Group 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a proposed multi -tower, mixed use development consisting of 1,150 residential units, approximately 1,770 square metres of ground floor commercial space, 667 car parking spaces and 592 bicycle parking spaces and provided the following: ➢ The sustainability statement should be revised to address Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8 more adequately. Specifically, how energy is being conserved or low energy generated. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy consumption. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the potential for implementing district energy exists. 1IPage Page 250 of 520 4. Advice: ➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability- initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise). ➢ The ENERGY STAR® Multifamily High -Rise Pilot Program for new construction is a new five-year certification program in Ontario that recognizes buildings that are at least 15% more energy- efficient than those built to the provincial energy code and meet other program requirements. More information can be found online at https://www.nrcan.Rc.ca/energy- efficiency/buildings/new-buildings/energy-starr-multifamily-high-rise-pilot-program/21966 ➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under 'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement 21 Page Page 251 of 520 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 138-162 Victoria St S, 92-110 Park St Owner: DOV Capital Corporation Application: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/017/V/ES and Official Plan Amendment OP21/011/V/ES Comments Of: Parks and Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Dec 06 2021 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) 0 No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: a. OPA/ZBA Agency Circulation Letter dated November 03 2021 b. Architectural Site Plan Package dated August 31 2021 26 pages c. Noise and Vibration Study — RWDI - dated September 10 2021 d. Pedestrian Wind Assessment dated — RWDI - September 10 2021 e. Planning Justification Report — GSP Group - dated August 2021 f. Urban Design Brief — GSP Group — dated August 2021 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the above noted documentation submitted to support an OPA / ZBA to permit a multi - tower, mixed use development consisting of a shared mid -rise podium of 6 storeys in height with 3 residential towers atop the podium. The 3 residential towers are proposed to be 25, 36, & 38 stories in height and contain a total of 1,150 residential units. The development also consists of approximately 1,770 square metres of ground floor commercial space. The development proposal contains 667 car parking spaces and 592 bicycle parking spaces. The parkland dedication requirement for this submission is deferred and will be assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the OPA and ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval according to the Parkland Dedication Policy current at the time of the site plan application. The property is located within the Expanded Downtown Core Boundary and is currently exempt from Parkland Dedication fees. Should any changes to the current policy exemption occur or revisions be made to the preliminary site plan, a revised parkland dedication assessment may be required. Parkland dedication requirements are subject to the Parkland Dedication Policy current at the time of the site plan application. Please be advised that the City of Kitchener Parkland Dedication Policy is currently under review. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community 18aw 2 of 520 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form 3. Comments on Submitted Documents The following comments should be addressed at this time. 1) Noise and Vibration Impact Study (NVIS) — RWDI - dated September 10 2021 a) Pg 8 — Section 3.1.4 Representative Receptors. The Outdoor Living Areas are all indicated as OLA -1 and should be revised b) The site plan indicates private terraces on the second -floor level along the northeast property line that appear to meet the criteria for OLAs; these should be included in the NVIS assessment c) The NVIS should be updated to reflect the final site plan application and any specific mitigation requirements reflected on the site plan and required subordinate plans. 2) Pedestrian Wind Assessment — RWDI - dated September 10 2021 a) As noted in the report, physical scale -model test in a boundary -layer wind tunnel or more detailed transient computational modelling should be conducted on the refined site plan proposal to develop and validate specific architectural and landscape wind control solutions. b) Predicted winter wind conditions at the Victoria St S and Park St corner are expected to be elevated to an "uncomfortable" level and mitigation is required. Summer winds are also expected to be elevated to "strolling" category where the renderings illustrate a restaurant patio and mitigation should be provided. c) Snow deposition should be included in the analysis and assessed for on-site areas as well as the adjacent public realm, roadways and immediate neighbouring properties. Public sidewalks and roadways should not have negative impacts. d) While the site is technically within the Cherry Hill Planning Community, it also borders two other neighbourhoods: The City Commercial Core and the Victoria Park communities. The availability of active local park space varies greatly across these three neighbourhoods and the provision of functional on-site amenity space — with low or mitigated wind impacts - will be critical not only for the success of the project but also to minimize impacts to the existing neighbourhood public park spaces and residents. e) A final Pedestrian Wind Assessment and snow deposition analysis should be conducted using a physical scale model test or more detailed CFD model for the ultimate site plan proposal and include specific architectural and landscape mitigation measures. 3) Urban Design Brief and Planning Justification Report— GSP Group —dated August 2021 a) Both documents briefly reference proposed streetscape plantings along both Victoria St S and Park St. Victoria St S is a Regional road, and while the City of Kitchener would support and encourage street tree planting Victoria St. S all comments regarding streetscape plantings on Victoria St S will be deferred the RMOW. b) As noted in Parks & Cemeteries presubmission application comments regarding this development proposal, street tree planting will be required along Park St. It is noted that planters are included in the preliminary site plan layout within the Park St right of way and this is positive. Tree planting shall conform to Section M of the Development Manual. Tree planting is to be approximately one large stature tree (LS) per 10 lineal meters of frontage with the intent of creating a continuous tree canopy. The number of proposed street trees is subject to required minimum soil volumes which should be augmented by the use of soil cell technology A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community aw of 520 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form and coordinated with on-site landscaping. The plantings and construction details will be finalized through the site plan application and coordinated with on-site landscaping; a Street Tree Planting Plan will be required along with legal agreements related to on-going maintenance arrangements. c) The PJR should include an analysis and discussion of how the proposed development will impact the existing neighbourhood including compatibility with adjacent land uses and neighbourhood; the availability of services and infrastructure related to parks, open space, urban forests and community facilities relative to the change in planned function and significant increase in density specifically referencing the objectives and policies and in Part C Section 8: Parks, Open Space, Urban Forests and Community Facilities. 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan - Section 8.C. Parks, Open Space, Urban Forests and Community Facilities • Kitchener Parkland Dedication Policy • City of Kitchener Development Manual • PARTS Central Plan • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Parks Strategic Plan • Urban Design Manual 5. Anticipated Fees: • Parkland Dedication paid as cash in lieu of land according to the density and use approved through the OPA/ZBA and the Parkland Dedication policy in place at Site Plan application. Due prior to final Site Plan approval. • Legal agreement fees and disbursements associated with on-going maintenance of streetscape elements. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community aw of 520 Eric Schneider From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 2:27 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) Good Afternoon Eric, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the above application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A) That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). B) That the developer and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board reach an agreement regarding the supply and erection of a sign (at the developer's expense and according to the Board's specifications) affixed to the development sign advising prospective residents about schools in the area. C) That the developer shall include the following wording in the site plan agreement / condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: "in order to limit liability, public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." D) That the developer co-ordinate and reach an agreement with the Waterloo Catholic District School Board and Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region regarding the provision and maintenance of infrastructure for school bus pick-up and drop-off locations. If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, November 4, 202111:07 AM To: CNR <proximity@cn.ca>; _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 (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster -Pengelly <cfosterpengelly@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 Page 255 of 520 <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>; Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) Caution - External Email - This Message comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on unrecognized links or provide your username and/or password. Please see attached - additional documentation available in ShareFile. Comments or questions should be directed to Eric Schneider, 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 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca 000000000 Disclaimer -This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and contain privileged or copyright information. You must not present this message to another party without gaining permission from the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. We do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects although due care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board. Page 256 of 520 Attachment E Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 3:37 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria Street South - ZBA21/017/V/ES Hi Eric, 'm sure you receive many emails about projects across Kitchener. I just wanted to share my initial reaction to the supporting documents for the project at 146 Victoria Street South — specifically the Truck Turning Plan. I honestly thought at first that it was a plan from the developer to address trucks getting stuck under the CN bridge on Park Street. Unfortunately, it seems to be just about how trucks will navigate the property. I was really excited there for a minute there :). Thanks for keeping us all informed on these projects - really appreciate it! MobilE Page 257 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 6:18 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Development Hello, Thank you for the flyer in my mail today about the "Application for Development in your Neighbourhood" regarding the 146-162 Victoria Street South, 92-110 Park Street proposed complex. Here are my thoughts: - I live right across the street a'. and I would not be happy if a massive building were to be built across from us. There are multiple huge condo/apartment buildings being built just down the street and throughout downtown Kitchener, and the construction is very frustrating, loud, and causes so many traffic issues. - I've also noticed that many buildings that are supposed to be mixed-use in the area can never rent out the mixed- use spaces successfully. - I hope that these apartments would be affordable for the people in KW, rather than high-priced condos that are going up everywhere. But I doubt they will be priced for the average KW resident. - If this building is approved, I will be moving out of the area. I love the neighbourhood I live in, but I feel like a 38 storey complex will destroy the community and the small businesses. - I would consider moving into a unit, but I will most likely not afford a unit in the building. This gargantuan building will probably drive the price of rent in the neighbourhood higher, I will likely be priced out of the neighbourhood in the near future. I would be far happier if the space were used for affordable housing or the community or a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Sincerely, Page 258 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 8:01 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Neighbourhood development at Park and Victoria St. Good Day, I received a card in my mail box today about the proposed new development at the corner of Victoria and Park streets. It looks like quite a building and it will be interesting to see how it effects the neighbourhood. The one thing that stands out to me in the very little bit of information that the card holds is that there will be only 667 car parking spots for 1150 residential units, which I suppose would not include and parking for the other uses that are also in the building. It would seem that that would leave a lot of people without a parking space in an area where parking does not seem that plentiful. It would also seem that any commercial enterprises in the building would have a hard time accommodating customer parking and I wonder what effect that may have on the ability of any business to succeed. I would be interested in attending a meeting or hearing more about the details of what is happening with this development. Thank you, Page 259 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 5:00 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback on Application for Development (146-162 Victoria) Hello Eric, I'm writing in response to the request for comments on an application for development in my neighbourhood -- the application in question is for 146-162 Victoria. Thanks for soliciting feedback. What I like about the proposed development: + The fact that it's mixed use • The emphasis on bicycle parking (although I am curious how this would be implemented) • Its location Overall I'm happy to see densification happening close to central station, which was part of the strategy for building the LRT My concerns about the developments: • How many units will be affordable housing? And how will the city hold the developer accountable to ensure that the units are rented at actual affordable rates? ■ The floor space ratio is not great and could be improved. This an incredibly tall building to put up directly next to single detached dwellings. It seems like a development that should be closer to downtown. I think that medium density would be more appropriate for this location. • I hope that the city plans bicycle infrastructure to connect this development with the downtown bicycle grid (at Victoria and Joseph) and the planned multi -use trail that will connect Cherry Park to central station. (It's great to have bicycle parking but that stretch of Victoria is not friendly to cyclists, and neither is Park St really.) + 1 hope that current tenants -- ex. Taste of Seoul -- are given preferential treatment for leasing in the new location, ideally with a limit to the increase on their current lease Lastly, I have a concern that is much broader. I wonder how this development application will accommodate the announcement made by the Haudenosaunee Hereditary Chiefs Council regarding a declared moratorium on land development on the Haldimand Tract, which of course includes the City of Kitchener.. I believe that the Six Nations of the Grand River have a legitimate legal basis for their declaration. The City of Kitchener should accommodate this declaration because: it is a moral duty (much of the land on the Haldimand Tract was stolen from Six Nations or the money paid was mismanaged by government trustees); collaboration with Six Nations on land development review and strategic directions is step toward advancing Indigenous sovereignty in Canada; and Six Nations review of land development proposals will help ensure that the land is developed in ways that are sustainable and environmentally friendly. I direct your attention to this quote from the HHCC website: Page 260 of 520 "The Haudenosau nee intend to exercise our jurisdiction over our lands and waters in away that maintains the delicate balance between Creation and humans, focusing on sustainability and responsiveness to climate change to protect waterways and ecologically sensitive areas." How does the City of Kitchener plan to accommodate this moratorium in respect to this development application? Since you asked for feedback, I'll add my two cents on what I see as productive steps on a path forward: The City should arrange for political representatives and staff from the Development and Construction department to meet with the HHCC to discuss how current policies could be adjusted to accommodate the moratorium (i.e. how to direct new and ongoing land development proposals, such as the one in question, to the HHCC for review); The City should announce upcoming changes to its land development application and review proceduros, citing its commitment to Canada's TRC Calls to Action for the recognition of sovereignty and self-determination of First Nations; In consultation and collaboration with representatives of the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nations, the City should explore integrating the values and principles of the Dish with One Spoon Wampum into the city's guiding frameworks for sustainable and ethical land development. Thanks for your time, bloLn I . - - Traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabe, and Haudenosaunee peoples Page 261 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:07 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria Park street application Hello Eric, I'm reading the urban design report for the proposed Park & Victoria development. The document indicates that the property is currently zoned MI..)1 MLJ2_ ,-after a great deal of research I understand that the max1mum floor space ritio -, 2 and 4 respectively and the max building height is 13.5 and 24 meters respectively. Can you confirm that these are the current regulations for this site? Would It be correct to assurne that the developers have been In conSLPItatiOn with the city planning department prier to their application for a fsf of I I.& Also is a public information meeting planned? Page 262 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:53 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; Berry Vrbanovic Cc: Tyler Subject: [EXTERNAL] Did not receive the notice for the Park and Victoria development Hello, My neighbour a few houses down from me on Theresa Street alerted me to a notice they received about the development at Victoria and Park. We did not receive the notice, and our property will be impacted by the shadows that the building will cast (as will the whole of Theresa Street). I inquired with Ms. Debbie Chapman who said that all properties within 240 m of the development should have received a notice. I measured on google this morning, and that would mean all properties on: - Theresa Street, - Park Street, - Henry Street, - Michael Street, - as well as one of the Victoria Place towers, should be provided a notice if the edge of the development is the point of measurement. My property is only 120 m from the development; not being provided with notice to provide comment is a frustrating oversight. I am glad my neighbour thought to reach out, but otherwise I would have not known about a development that would have large impacts on the sunlight over my property and traffic patterns of my neighbourhood. The remaining people who are entitled to be provided notice should be provided notice post-haste, and if there is a delay the period of consultation should be extended. Page 263 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November iu, zuz i ,):uz PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St S at Park St. 38 stories!! 1150 residential units equals approximately 2300 more people in this neighborhood. Already the traffic going up Victoria towards Westmount is congested because the neighborhood between Belmont and Lawrence fought against expanding the road to 4 lanes and won. What will this look like with another 2300+ people in the hood along with the business owners? Where will you put more green spaces in this neighborhood for this highrise and the other 3 that are currently under construction and are in very close proximlty to eine another?? Cherry park Is super small and the only other park is Victoria. These 2 parks will be overrun with people looking to enjoy a green space and walk their dog. A nicer neighborhood is great because we have been the victim of lower class living for far too long but this development is sending our population off the charts. The Iron Horse Trail is extremely busy. During the height of the pandemic, it was so congested it was dangerous for the old folks with walkers and canes to even be on it. This will only get worse. Using up real estate in the core is a good idea now that so many factories are no longer operational but where are all of these people suppose to enjoy their neighborhood?? Respectfully, Lived here since 1983 Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada's largest network. Page 264 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 1:51 PM To: Eric Schneider; Dabbie.chapman@kitchener.ca; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park development (146 Victoria Street South) proposal in Kitchener Hello, It has come to my understanding that there are some neighbourhood association groups and individuals who are or are planning to object to allowing this project to be approved as it is, either with aims to severely reduce building height or cancel it all together. I won't bother to share their grievances here as I am sure they will do that ori their awn accord. However, I would nonetheless like to instead offer my support for this project. I'm an artist who works at the intersection of art, architecture and urbanism, working with many institutions and projects in the past. I like to think that I have good knowledge on urban development issues as a result. Ultimately, I believe this proie;. t Inok �rvat. The location could not bij any better - Victoria Street is growing to become an important street in downtown Kitchener and I believe it to be one of the best places the city/region can begin to densify with projects such as these (although the street itself may need revamping at some point to enhance the pedestrian experience; it may also one day provide a good east -west LRT line when needed, perhaps connecting YFK to the Boardwalk). Architecturally, these buildings look fantastic. IBI Group did a good job and this is a step above many of the current projects that have so far been built here. I'm a fan of contemporary architectural design that has an aesthetic cohe ;ivcness to it, whereas unfortunately, many projects decide to "cheap out" on fts ,n,purtant factor, becoming eyesores that blight the skyline for the rest of our lifetimes, such as the Duke Tower project or anything else SRM Architects gets involved in. That the building complex itself offers a very grand vision: 1150 one and two bedroom units constructed downtown - so close to the future train station, LRT, bus routes, nearby businesses - is a big deal. More commercial space is also very desirable and will continue to be so as we come out of this pandemic and people seek to start new businesses, More homes are needed to help this ho using crisis atrc}ss the nation, To provide ovr~r one thousand homes, in a beautiful building complex, so dose to daily needs, is nothing but great. The density of so many people living here will also add to the streetlight of downtown which would also contribute economically to surrounding businesses, be them restaurants, entertainment venues, parks, shops and also contributing to the overall vibrancy of downtown street life regardless of the time of day. Whilst I could write a lot wore, I'll try to keep this short. Overall, I hope that the City of Kitchener is able to approve this project as it is now - with no reduction in height, increased parking etc ... whatever NIMBYs may complain about - as it will provide so much to the city from homes, to jobs, to new commercial spaces to adding to our growing skyline and helping to prove that Kitchener - Waterloo Region as a whole - is now an important major Canadian city/region for businesses, residents, our educational facilities and so much more. We need to appreciate the fact we're growing rather than find this alarming and immediately yearn for conservatism. Growth and evolution is the key to most things. I'm happy to have witnessed the transformation of this area in the last 2 decades car so, going frorn a fairly insignificant place to one of the nations most important cities for everything frow, technology to education. As long as our elected officials and developers can continue to develop this place we call home by allowing these wonderful new projects to get built and grow our city, then we can become even more proud of the place we live. Page 265 of 520 It is my hope that the City of Ki [chener +will approve this pro iccr_ and many more after this, regardless of height or density: if it's a good proposal, it should be approved. As the old adage goes in architecture/urbanism: "build up, not out" (and build transit to match it, of course!). It's the only way you can build a truly livable city and repair the last century of poor car -oriented -planning that left most if not all North American cities in ruins due to poor urban planning and policy decisions in the 20th century. It's time all the cities in Waterloo Region make this place a truly unique, desirable and great place to live. Thank you, Page 266 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 2:10 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Proposed Development of 146-162 Victoria St. S & 92-110 Park St. Dear Sir: As a former long time resident of Kitchener who moved away for many years in retirement and then chose to return several years ago , I find myself watching 'development' with dismay . I carefully selected the downtown area as my permanent home as it offers both charm & vibrancy . Progress and development are inevitable but somehow the buildings, both proposed and currently under construction, are getting taller and taller . This particular proposal involving a building of 38 stories is overwhelming & leaves me wondering if there is some kind of contest going on among developers . I see several other proposed buildings also in the 35 storey range . Too high for Kitchener to retain a sense of good taste and welcome . There are also several buildings in the mid 20 storey range which I do consider acceptable and reflect a modern but manageable community , something that still has eye appeal . Do we want to be another Toronto ? I suspect that the majority of our residents would say "No" ! We still have the opportunity to be Kitchener - independent , unique and a wonderful place to live . Sincerely, Page 267 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 9:04 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] re development at Victoria and Park I currently reside at In Kitchener ( for the past 20 years), almost across the street where this monstrosity of a development will be going in. I am very concerned about the height of the towers as well as the traffic flow on Victoria. I would like you to decrease the height of the towers drastically. I pay taxes and The height would affect the amount of light on my house and also severely increase the traffic flow to an unmanageable level. With the current construction of Victoria at Joseph and Victoria, we have already lost privacy, and light, not to mention a increase of property taxes. Adding buildings at this height is highly unreasonable. We are NOT TORONTO. I implore you to reconsider the height so as to fit in to this HERITAGE AREA!! The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria. For example, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, at 38 storeys would be like both the towers at the One Hundred development staked on top of each other. Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established neighbourhoods, not taller. The following are suggested to reduce the impacts to nearby residents: - Reducing the heights of the towers, a mid -rise scale (5-11 storeys) or small high-rise such as the Iron Horse towers (15 storeys), which is set next to historical homes on Schneider Street, - Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. - Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Page 268 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2021 8:34 AM To: Eric Schneider, Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria St S proposed development Hi Eric & Debbie, I received in mail a postcard indicating that a developer would like to add an 1150 unit complex on Victoria St S and Park St. To be clear, I am against any rule changes that favour increased density for a particular development including this one. We already have traffic issues in this area. Turning onto Victoria St S from just south of the proposed buildings is cumbersome already. There are at least three new buildings that are not entirely finished within a kilometre of the proposed site (add that to the traffic study). The 4 way stop in Victoria park is often backed up and the light at Queen St is also a congestion point. When you add the new residents from the buildings currently under construction I suspect we are in for gridlock. A minor accident at Park and Victoria the other day snarled traffic for hours, emergency vehicles have a hard time getting through. Every time you add more residential units you there will be more traffic and yet the traffic study is dated 2016 so it's likely out of date. The plan can't be simply we will attract people without cars. (although Im sure the LRT will get some uplift) The proposed parking spaces are totally inadequate. The average number of cars per household in Canada is 1.5 the proposal is 0.54 not including parking for retail proposed. In the parking executive summary it is very clear they had to go to Hamilton to find an example of a building with similar cars per unit and an old apartment near the library. These are not urban examples they are more like residences for single seniors. I understand we need to grow as a city but there needs to be more impact studies, traffic planning and realistic proposals. I suspect the developer knows there will be push back and are willing to go to a 25 story building instead of 38 with maybe only 800 units but that too will be beyond the road carrying capacity once all the buildings in the area are filled up. I think we are quickly becoming dense and letting developers get us all denser is not really a good idea. Please add me to the list of people who would like to hear about the "notice of decision". Thanks for reading and feel free to comment if I am missing any important information. (for example is Victoria St being widened to 4 lanes, more stop lights etc.) Page 269 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2021 11:35 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development: 146-162 Victoria Street Hello Eric, I've recieved the notification if the development application fire Victoria and Park. I live at How can I get further information on the pre -submission meetings between the owners and the city? I'm looking for attendees, minutes, any and all documentation related to the discussions. Thank you, Page 270 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 11:47 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re the proposed development property at the corner of Park and Victoria St. S To whom it may concern I am a resident in the community. I am in favour of downtown intensification and therefore support the building of multi use complexes. My question has more to do with the nature of the use. What we knew before the pandemic and what is even clearer now, is the growing disparity between the "have's " and the "have nots." In this city, we see the growing challenge of homelessness and affordable housing. How will this complex respond to this situation? In New York City, for example, when new large multi storey buildings happen, a certain percentage of those are designated for folks on the lower income bracket, making some units affordable. While this proposal says that it is for "mixed use ," will there be affordable rental units, or is the project there simply to put money into the hands of the developers? I would like to think that with every proposal, the City would look at the housing needs of the entire community. Regards, Page 271 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 10:19 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: ebbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at 146 Victoria St S Hello, As a resident of the neighbourhood I have the following comments and questions on the application for development at 146 Victoria St S (Park and Victoria St): 1. Impact on existing community members: What plans have been made for safety and comfort of pedestrians and cyclists in the area re wind tunnels at the corners, changes in snow deposition, and shadows from the building? How has mitigation of additional traffic in the area for existing houses been addressed? 2. Affordability: No mention of affordable units is made at all. I strongly feel all developments should have more affordable units as part of their mix given the number of homeless and precariously housed people in the Region to add to the affordable housing supply. "There are 1,150 one -bedroom and two- bedroom units". Affordable rental options for different sized families should also include some 3 bedroom units. Units that also facilitate work from home should be considered. Many families attending nearby schools are living in rental housing, children should be considered too for amenities. How many of the units would be considered affordable? 3. Accessibility: for people with mobility challenges, it is mentioned "Walkways will be designed for universal accessibility" but it doesn't indicate if units themselves are designed for universal accessibility as well. Are the units universally accessible? 4. Sustainability: a. (green space) The current design really seems to lack green space at street level, though the green roof is an excellent addition. Ground level green space and tree planting is important to mitigate heat island, wind, and stormwater issues as well as provide green space for community members. The area is low on tree canopy -the City of Kitchener's Urban Forest mapping shows this area (Cherry Park neighbourhood) has only 20% tree canopy which is lower than desired- so more should really be mentioned and included for trees and greenspace beyond "The landscape plan proposes a regular spaced pattern of deciduous. trees lining the site's Victoria Street South frontage and along the internal perimeter boundaries, contributing to the urban tree cover. Soft -scoped spaces elsewhere at -grade and on podium rooftops providing additional plantings for the site. " It is hard to visualize the spaces at -grade in the conceptual drawings. Can more green space and trees be added? A parkette (for example similar to the one on the Trio development bordering Gage and Belmont and the Iron Horse Trail) would create the above-mentioned benefits on the north side of Victoria St. b. (climate change) Greenhouse gas emissions not mentioned at all in the urban design brief (although some of the design sustainability items would be related). Green energy generation may be a missed opportunity as it is stated "Alternative or renewable energy systems are not proposed" and "Solar PV installations are not proposed". Could solar installations be considered as an explicit option in the initial design? c. (Recycling) "innovative waste management using systems that encourage the collecting and recycling of waste produced by residents" sounds reasonable. However, compostable collection Page 272 of 520 Regards, is not mentioned at all, this should be explicitly designed into their waste management system from the beginning. d. (Stormwater infiltration) "Stormwater on the site will be controlled through connections to the existing sewers on Victoria Street South and Park Street, per the submitted functional engineering drawings. "Opportunities for incorporating landscaping elements and surface treatment that promotes stormwater infiltration will be explored at detailed design". The conceptual drawings show very little of those opportunities considered so far, I would like to see much more on this to improve the climate resiliency of the area instead of relying on existing sewers that would not have been designed with increased intensity and duration of precipitation given climate change. Pervious surfaces and rainwater capture for landscaping purposes could be options. e. (Other sustainability issues) i. -Good that the parking is underground, and they have considered the roofing to reduce heat island effects. ii. -Good they have considered energy conservation in their window -to -wall ratio. iii. -Infrastructure for EV charging stations in the parking garage is provided from the outset. (Good, but how many EV charging stations?) Page 273 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 12:32 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments - Application for Development - 146-162 Victoria St. S. & 92-110 Park St. Hello Eric, My name is id I live with my husband three children rn We are writing to you with significant concern about the proposed development at 146-162 Victoria St. S. & 92-110 Park St. We received the application for development notice in our mailbox earlier this week and it has certainly initiated a conversation amongst our family as well as neighbours in the community. We understand that one of our neighbours emailed in May with concerns for the proposed developments in the downtown core (30 Francis & 20 Queen St.). We feel that they were quite articulate, thoughtful and concise in pointing to various concerns with high-rise developments like those ones and now this current application for Victoria St. S. & Park St.: unaesthetic cityscape; small units do not allow for diverse households; throwaway buildings; place making along with densification. I will not repeat their arguments here but suffice to say we feel the trend continues with this project at Victoria St. S. & Park St. We would like to upfront acknowledge that we're sure receiving an email opposing an application for development comes off as NIMBYism at its finest. To be clear — we are not opposed to development and intensification in the downtown core. We agree in principal with the goals and strategies of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (along with the various urban design manuals); Region of Waterloo Official Plan; 2019 Growth Plan; 2020 Provincial Policy Statement; and Planning Act provided they are enacted with a long-term vision for what is best for the type of City and community we are shaping for the future. As Chris Hume of the Toronto Star notes, "There are two types of heritage, let's not forget: one we inherit; the other we bequeath." In that vein, we are looking for the City of Kitchener to guide thoughtful and appropriate development and increased density in the downtown core — added height and density in and of themselves will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. The absurd juxtaposition of three high-rise buildings of the proposed sizes directly adjacent to the low-rise mature neighbourhoods of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and Cherry Hill does not speak to careful, sustainable, thoughtful and appropriate planning but instead to short-sighted, short-term, and profit oriented thinking. We sincerely ask that City Councillors challenge this application for proposed development to acknowledge genuine design concerns posed to characteristics of the community and quality of life by this type of built form. Certainly there must be a more "Goldilocks" proposal for this space. Are high-rise infill developments of this size the only way to increase density? Certainly not. Can we not learn from the experiences of other Canadian cities and cities around the world (e.g. Vancouver, Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam, etc.) who have and are confronting the challenge of intensification with other built -forms (i.e. mid -rise buildings of 5-11 storeys high) to increase density in a way that is more harmonious with the community in which they exist: human - scaled in terms of size; fits into the character of the neighbourhood; animates sidewalk culture; offers a diverse range of units including family -sized options to attract a more diverse population; provides greater flexibility as a building type in order to be more resilient to future modification and adaptation (a key sustainability factor). Page 274 of 520 We have read and reviewed the Planning Justification Report (PJR) forth is proposed development submitted by the Applicant (Kevin Muir, GSP Group). Although, in his opinion, this development "ticks all the boxes" we fail to see how this development "'respect[s] the existing scale, height, building length and massing of the neighbourhood" (from City of Kitchener Design for Residential Infill In Central Neighbourhoods, Urban Design Manual). We realize that"the site technically falls into a "Mixed -Use Zoning" but the application is seeking exemptions from several zoning compliance regulations which would actually be appropriate for a site that is directly next to low-rise residential communities along Park St., Theresa St., and Victoria St. For instance: MAX building height of 32M (applicant proposing 82.8m, 115.25m, and 121.75m); MAX number of storeys of 10 storeys (applicant proposing 25, 36 and 38 storeys — above podium!). These heights rival the tallest buildings in the region (DTK Condos at 39 storeys and Charlie West at 31 storeys) which are also arguably too tall but at least do not directly abut low-rise residential neighbourhoods. These proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park — 20-32 storeys higher! As referenced in the PJR, the Kitchener Official Plan Section 11.C.1.31 intends that new buildings are designed and existing buildings are reworked to "enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places" as well as Section 4.C.1.9 which directs that residential intensification and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is to be designed to respect existing character with a "high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context" — we argue that these proposed towers fail to appropriately acknowledge the surrounding context in an insatiable desire for increased floor space and thus profit. The scale, massing, and transition are completely inappropriate for this location and we fail to see how "the proposed building height and scale can be achieved without creating unacceptable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood resulting from the taller building form" (PJR, p.42). The application also references the housing diversity perspective and that it further diversifies the housing stock in DTK with options in unit types and sizes. To be clear, it is offering a "mix" of mostly one -bedroom (two-thirds of inventory) and two-bedroom (one-third of inventory) like most of the other high-rise residential buildings that have recently gone up. Is this really increasing housing diversity? A small one or two bedroom unit in a high-rise building is seldom considered a life-long address for a vast majority of the North American population. So what type of community is the City of Kitchener interested in creating? It would appear one that is more geared to transitory populations who can afford the high price of these units (the small number of affordable units provided aside - all of which are one -bedroom). These are certainly not geared to families or even those looking to downsize. We would argue that a greatersupply of mid -rise, medium -density housing options can better solve the affordability, supply, and density needs of our community while fitting into the character of the neighbourhood (at locations throughout the City and Region) and creating a vibrant, healthy, livable, safe and attractive community. With a development of this scale of course we are concerned by a variety of factors such as increased vehicular traffic (poorly accounted for in the PJR and an issue we currently struggle with on in terms of speeding and wrong - way traffic), shadow and wind impacts (truly concerning shadow mapping in the Urban Design Brief from GSP), loss of privacy, pressure on existing services and amenities, change of neighbourhood character, decrease of property values, and further intrusion of high-rise development into low-rise areas. As the issue of urban density is not new it has been the subject of both debate but also research for decades and we urge City Council to seriously weigh the pros and cons of approving a development of this scale for both the community and those who occupy these units which can actually be isolating from daily urban life and the activity that takes place on the streets. To reiterate — we are definitely not opposed to increased development in DTK and applaud some of the more appropriate mid -rise developments that exist, have been re -worked or have recently been completed like the Arrow Lofts and Barra on Queen as just a couple of examples. There is absolutely room for more to enjoy what DTK has to offer but this proposed development, for the reasons outlined above, is not the way forward. Our sincere thanks for your time and attention to this matter. With respect, Page 275 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:45 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on Development at Victoria and Park Street Dear Mr. Schneider and Ms. Campbell, My name is and I live with my husbana and We are contacting you regarding the new proposed development at the intersection of Park Street and Victoria Street. We are proud to call downtown Kitchener our home. Although we do think that the parcel of land at Park and Victoria is prime land for redevelopment, we were completely taken aback by the scale of the proposed development. Although there are several existing towers near Victoria Park, these are generally not near low rise homes, or are much shorter where they are near low rise homes. The proposed Victoria and Park Towers are much taller than any existing tower near Victoria Park, 20-32 storeys higher! Several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South since 2016. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street toward low rise established neighbourhoods. 1 Victoria — 19 storeys — completed in 2016 [1 ] One Hundred Tower A — 21 storeys — completed in 2020 [1 ] • One Hundred Tower B — 17 storeys — completed in 2020 [1 ] • Garment St Condos — 28 storeys — complete in 2021 [1 ] The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably taller than any of the recently completed buildings along Victoria; the tallest tower would be equivalent to the two towers at the One Hundred staked on top of each other! Currently the tallest tower in Region is DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys [1 ]. However, DTK Condos is located in the core of downtown, and is not located near low rise residential areas. The Park and Victoria development would place two similarly tall towers within throwing distance of the Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods, and to our knowledge would be the largest development in the downtown to date. One would hope that in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to surrounding residential areas, new developments would be getting shorter as they approach low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. In addition to being very tall, the proposed development will be very close to the street and the towers will have little set -back from the edge of the podium. The impact on the street scape would be very imposing and incongruous with the nearby land use, and so we strongly question the logic of the placement of such a large development where it is currently proposed. In our mind, a midrise (5-10 storeys) would be much more complementary to the existing nearby neighbourhoods; furthermore, a development 10 storeys or less would follow current zoning regulations. As residents of Theresa Street we have several concerns: • Increased Motor Vehicle Traffic • Shadows Page 276 of 520 • Community Vitality • Pedestrian and Cycling Landscape • Overuse of Existing Nearby Amenities and Lack of Place Making Increased Motor Vehicle Traffic Located at the corner and Park and Victoria, this development will place more stress on an already heavily trafficked corner. We are concerned about how the new development will impact traffic patterns along Victoria Street and Park Street, through the park on Jubilee and throughout our neighbourhood. Our street already has a big issue with aggressive, fast and wrong way drivers (our street is a one-way street). It is a perennial issue that has been getting seemingly worse over the years, and one for which many of our neighbours consistently send complaints to the City. We fear that this development would only exacerbate the problem. Shadows We are very concerned about the impact these towers will have on the enjoyment of our home. In late summer and early fall, most our all of our street will be in the shadow of these towers in the late afternoon and early evening. Our street has a strong community: neighbours sit out on'their porch in the evening to soak up the sun and chat with passersby, children play together on the sidewalk, and people converse on the sidewalks as they wind down after work. These shadows will make the street darker and colder which will make our street less inviting and risks damaging the social fabric of our neighbourhood. Community Vitality While we agree in principle with city's plan for greater density in the downtown core, we expect that like most things, when it comes to density more is not always better. It is understood that increasing the density beyond the existing condition at the site of the proposed development can surely contributes positively to the livability and vitality of the community within and surrounding the development. However, at some point further increases to size of a development will start to have negative impacts that outweigh the initial benefits. The goal of increasing density in the core should be to create healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities, not simply more housing at any cost. To that point, we are concerned about the quality of housing that this development will create. Like most of the other high-rise residential buildings that have been built recently, this development is offering mostly one - bedroom (two-thirds of inventory) and two-bedroom (one-third of inventory). In a one -bedroom apartment singles cannot comfortably share their space and costs with a roommate, and one -bedrooms apartments are not ideal options for families or even downsizing couples. If the goal is densification, we need to consider the quality of the units not just the number of the units. This type of construction will not alleviate the current housing crunch we are experiencing in this City as it does not appeal to diverse households, and is not a viable alternative to detached and semi-detached homes. Although it is understood that land is at a premium in the core, which leads to proposals that try to maximize the number of units on a property's footprint. As more people can comfortably live in a unit with more rooms, it stands to reason that buildings with a greater proportion of units with two of more bedrooms could result in more densely occupied buildings than buildings with a greater proportion of one -bedroom units, even though there would be less units. More units per building are more profitable for developers though. We (residents of Kitchener) will be living with these towers for a very long time, long after the developers are gone. Therefore, short term goals such as fast densification and maximizing the profitability of developers should not be the leading concerns in considering such developments. Pedestrian and Cycling Landscape According to the design report there will be an entrance for parking off of both Park Street and Victoria Street, the development will only have car parking for approximately 60% of units and there will be bicycle parking However, the design of the development is still strongly car centric. For example, there does not appear to be a separate or protected entrances for cyclists to access bicycle parking. Only confident able-bodied cyclists would be able to use such parking, riding along a parking garage Page 277 of 520 with cars would discourage less able bodied or confident cyclist and is certainly not appropriate for children. Such a large development should be inclusive to a wide demographic of people, including families. Additionally there appears to be little consideration for the experience of pedestrians in the building design, which is apparent in reviewing the wind impact study. Air flow around the building would create uncomfortable conditions around the building for any one not standing still right at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street both in the winter and the summer. This is notably the area where architectural renderings propose outdoor seating, and is where pedestrians would be required to wait in order to cross the road. Overuse of Existing Nearby Amenities and Lack of Place -Making Lastly, new developments are being built faster than the City is building new amenities for the new residents such as green spaces, trails, parks, squares, schools, and daycares. By concentrating so much development in one place without equal investment in communal space, we risk overuse of existing amenities. How will Victoria and Cherry Parks cope with an additional 1000+ residents at its doorstep? Will these parks be expanded and/or have further amenities added to compensate for increased use? Sales materials for new condos often list all the amenities that new residents can take advantage of, but these large developments should ideally be contributing to place making in our street-scapes, not just taking advantage of our existing places. The Bauer Lofts is a great example of a condo development that included placemaking in their design; we need more thoughtful design like the Bauer Lofts! The podium design of the proposed development excludes non-residents of the towers from taking advantage of the shared outdoor space, and although there will be retail on the lower levels of the podium, available retail space in of itself does not result in place making. The lower levels of 1 Victoria and the One hundred towers are a testament to this. Summary In summary, we suggest that a midrise (5-10 storeys) would be much more complementary to the existing nearby neighbourhoods, as stated a midrise would also follow current zoning regulations. A smaller development would better integrate into the existing fabric of the surrounding neighbourhoods by placing less stress on the traffic in the area, including through Victoria Park and a smaller development would not cause large shadows over entire existing low rise heritage neighbourhoods. In our case, we are very concerned of the impacts of increased traffic and shadows on the enjoyment of our home and neighbourhood. The goal of densification in the core of downtown Kitchener should be to create healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities, not simply more housing. At some point further increasing density will start to have a negative impact that outweigh the initial benefits of a new development. While the number of new housing units is an important consideration in increasing density, the quality of those units should be an equally if not more important consideration. Units with two more bedrooms are more appealing than one -bedroom units to a larger more diverse set of households and are a better alternative to semi or fully detached homes. Furthermore, more people can comfortably live in a unit with more rooms, reasonably complexes with a greater proportion of units with two or more bedrooms could result in more densely occupied buildings than buildings with a greater proportion of one -bedroom units. With the exception of some proposed retail space on the ground level, the new development does not plan on contributing to the placemaking at street level. It would also the pedestrian experience near the building less comfortable due to increased wind speeds, particularly at the corner of Park street and Victoria street where pedestrians would need to wait to cross the road and where architectural renderings suggest an area of outdoor seating. Finally if the City wants to densify the core, it also needs to create more common space for residents to gather; otherwise, there could be added stress on and overuse of existing amenities such as Victoria and Cherry Parks. Our sincere thanks for your time and attention to this matter. With respect, Page 278 of 520 [1] https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest 'buildings in the Waterloo Re oional Municipality Page 279 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1:29 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Development at King and Park Attachments: Letter to City re New Development.docx Hi Eric, Hope you are having a great day! I have attached a letter stating my concerns for the new development going up at King and Park. I think the new development will be great for DTK but I mention a couple concerns I have with regards to increased traffic on the street I live on (' ) and the reduced safety as a result, as well as the height/size of the new development. Please have a read as these concerns are shared by many of my neighbours and the surrounding community. Many thanks, This email message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Thank you. Page 280 of 520 Hello, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development, a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid -rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. As a resident of Theresa Street I am not opposed to the development but I am deeply concerned about how the new development, if built the way it is proposed, will impact the street I live on and the city I live in. First of all, it's too tall for where it is located! In the DT core a building like that makes sense. But this tower is in very close proximity to 2 storey housing near Cherry Park and Victoria Park. Tower heights should be reducing further from the core, not increasing! My main concern is the safety of the children and others living on our street if the development is allowed to be as high and house as many people as proposed. As a one way between Park and Victoria, Theresa Street is already often used as a short cut to beat the light or traffic at Park and Victoria. This leads to fast, aggressive drivers coming down Theresa Street. There are over 20 children living on this street and it is only a matter of time before someone inadvertently drives too fast down our street and severely injures someone. The new development's main entrance is right across from Theresa Street. If the development goes ahead as large as proposed there will only be an increase in speeding and aggressive driving on our street. I am also concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street, which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park (see a summary below); however, these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes. The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. • 1 Victoria -19 storeys - completed in 2016 m •- One Hundred Tower A - 21 storeys - completed in 2020m One Hundred Tower B -17 storeys - completed in 2020m Garment St Condos - 28 storeys - complete in 2021m The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storeys, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. Page 281 of 520 With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid -rise scale (10-15 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. 0 Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place I - 7 storeysizi 205 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place II - 9 storeys [3 241 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys 243 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 - 6 storeys<� Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers - 15 storeys 310 Queen Street South - Victoria Park Towers - 14 storeys 6� 290 Queen Street South - Victoria Place Retirement Community - 7 storeys « 214 Queen Street South - the York - 6 storeys =, South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen - 6 storeys 307 Queen Street South - Bread and Roses - 6 storeys [7) 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers - 17 storeys iij Sources: 1. https:,//en.wikipedia.orglwiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipa ji, y 2. https://www.drewlohoIdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-i 3. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii Page 282 of 520 4, Counted manually S. https:I/www.drewloholdings.com f apartments-for-rent f iron-horse-towers 6, https:[fwww.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7, httl2s:/Iwww.breadandroses.coop/ 8. https:[fbarracondos.com/about-barraL Page 283 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 12:32 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria - Park development Eric, Right now this development is simultaneously going through an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By -Law Amendment. For zoning, the FSR allowed is 5.0 and they are requesting 11.6? Somewhere the max. building height is 24m and they are requesting 122m? Is the above correct? Why are there Zoning requirements in place if no one adheres to them? Did the planners who created the zoning get it wrong? Does the City of Kitchener hire incompetent staff? Or are the Developers smarter and know what is best? I think a 4-6 storey podium will be too big beside the small neighbours to the East on Victoria. 2 of the 3 towers are considerably taller than the Garment Condos and the 100 Victoria towers. Mixed use is great. Housing and intensification is good. But the towers are too tall (as seen in the Architectural drawings Renderings A5.1 and A5.2). I see amenity space for the residents but what are they providing for the neighbourhood/community? I've visited the Kitchener Planning Applications website and listed is "Council Meeting Information". When I click there it just takes me to the general council meeting page. Is there a targeted Council meeting for this project and if so when? Thank you for your time, Page 284 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 2:43 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park & Victoria development proposal Dear Mr. Schneider, On the information card we recently received concerning the abovementioned development proposal, it is stated that a neighbourhood information meeting will be scheduled, "if required". We humbly suggest to you that a development proposal of this magnitude absolutely necessitates public consultation to preserve some semblance of democracy and transparency on the City's and Developer's parts. We hereby request that a neighbourhood information meeting be scheduled. Please acknowledge receipt of this message by return email. Sincerely, Page 285 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:20 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Victoria and Park Tower development Cheers Eric, am writing to endorse the height of the proposed Victoria and Park town development. I came across a petition to reduce the height, and I wanted to make sure that you know some Kitchener residents (I am close, at 410 Duke St W) approve of high rises. I believe Kitchener/Waterloo to be a city on the rise, and I want to see development going up and not out. Preserve the farmland surrounding us, move the humans into the sky. Page 286 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 9:42 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park Towers Attachments: Victoria and Park Towers - Letter.docx-eric.docx Hi Eric, Please see attached letter with my concerns dream ... create ...inspire... I believe all animals are entitled to live their lives and avoid all form of abuse and suffering Page 287 of 520 Hello, Mr. Schneider I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development, a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid -rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener -Waterloo Region, DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos, though, it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline. According to the design report, the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street, as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of , I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property, .which will be in the shadow of the tower. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street, which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street, through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park (see a summary below); however, these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes. The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself. Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. - 1 Victoria -19 storeys - completed in 2016 N - One Hundred Tower A - 21 storeys - completed in 2020 [ll - One Hundred Tower B -17 storeys - completed in 2020 N Garment St Condos - 28 storeys - complete in 2021 N The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storeys, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Page 288 of 520 Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: - Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid -rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. - Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place I - 7 storeys [2] 205 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place II - 9 storeys [31 241 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys [4] 243 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1- 6 storeys [4) Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers -15 storeys 151 310 Queen Street South - Victoria Park Towers -14 storeys [6) 290 Queen Street South - Victoria Place Retirement Community - 7 storeys [41 214 Queen Street South - the York - 6 storeys [4] South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen - 6 storeys 1e1 307 Queen Street South - Bread and Roses - 6 storeys [7] Page 289 of 520 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers —17 storeys M Sources: 1. https:f_/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipa lity 2. https:/Zwww.drewloholdings.com apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-i 3. https:/,Lwww.drewloholdin s� com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually S. https://www.drewloholdings.comlapartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. https://www.drewloholdin2s.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. https://www.breadandroses.cooli,/ 8. https:/.Ibarracondos.com/about-barra/ Page 290 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 11:52 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria St South Development Hey Eric! Hope your day is good, I am a resident of Kitchener further down on Victoria St S, I will be able to see this building from my intersection. I was reviewing the supporting documentation for the site plan approval for the Victoria and Park development that was recently submitted and wanted to give any feedback, for what its worth. I don't know much about planning, other than the obvious housing supply crisis which I'm sure you are well aware of, I must say architectural and aesthetically speaking I think this is the most promising application in the Region. Many developments in the Region are known for their lacklustre architecture (not the City's fault) and cheap materials due to cutting costs (Eg. University district which looks like the buildings are 80's Soviet buildings) I know this is up to the developer to bring forth this quality of proposal, and the city doesn't get too involved in the quality etc. This is something that worries me with all of the upcoming developments downtown and would not want our Downtown to be an eye sore. From the massing and materials documents, this development brings a big of flare, something that we will need to consider to keep reviving our downtown and attracting talent. As for the height, I think it is the perfect height. We need to build up if anything is going to get solved. (The Station Park phase 3 development is 156m and right around the corner and I suspect developments will continue to rise, being we are the 10th largest CMA in Canada) Thanks for your time have a great one! "Life's brighter under the sun" This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately. Le present message electronique (y compris les pieces qui y sont annexees, le cas echeant) s'adresse au destinataire indique et peut contenir des renseignements de caractere prive ou confidentiel. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire de ce document, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer ou de le reproduire. Si ce message vous a ete transmis par erreur, veuillez en informer 1'expediteur et le supprimer immediatement. Page 291 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 9:02 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Development of 146-162 Victoria St S in Kitchener Good morning and warm wishes. Thank you for the invitation in your "Application for Development" to respond to the proposed development on Victoria St S in Kitchener. You will see from my current address (below) that we live only one block from the proposed development. I would like to offer these brief observations and questions: 1. Whereas I fully support intensification and its benefits for this immediate area, does this area have the capacity to embrace the increased flow of people and cars? Will it in effect "flood" Victoria Park and the nearby trails? It will serve as a boon for small businesses and that is positive. 2. The footprint and impact on the immediate community will be immense. Already the traffic flows on Victoria are heavy, especially in peak flow times ... the early morning and late afternoon. Already it is a challenge to gain access to Victoria from our address at 205 Victoria at these times. There is an accident waiting to happen. 3. Of the 1150 Units, how many will be designated for low income housing? 4. What is your assessment of what such a tall structure might have on the sun breaking in on folks in the vicinity? 5. What is the makeup of the 1150 Units? Are these rental Units or Condos or a combination? 6. 1 assume you are assuming underground parking, right? Thank you for this opportunity to offer response and counsel. I appreciate your good work in planning for a sustainable and attractive city. Best Canada Page 292 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 12:14 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street Importance: High Hi Eric and Debbie, I received a "notice of development" card for Victoria Street South & Park Street. As a neighbour going to be affected by this; I thank the City of Kitchener for the information. Hopefully the city will share the outcome of the concerns and feed -back and not fast-track its plan to build without meaningful public input. I would like feedback on what our Kitchener Fire and Ambulance services feel about this. As it is now any emergency (especially with firetrucks) on Victoria Street South one lane of traffic, there is absolutely no place for vehicles to move over. Add dump trucks/cranes/service vehicles ( for this development) on Victoria and Park Streets and we are doomed. I am not in favour of adding another 1150 units to an already congested area in Ward 9. There are at least three new buildings within a km of this development that are not entirely finished. There is another development "just outside Kitchener's downtown" Station Park condo's with 2 towers 18 and 28 Storeys high which will add almost 1000 residential units! Just like that, ambitious out of town developers are causing local, life -time residents of Kitchener to absorb 2,150 residential units with no regards to traffic concerns. I did review the planning application, and I have comments/suggestions/concerns. I have attached pictures that were not addressed in the TIS (Transportation Impact Study) Tower A = 25 Storevs. Tower B = 36 Storevs. Tower C = 38 Storevs for a total of 1150 Units and 667 vehicle parking « 1150 units will add to traffic congestion nightmare with home deliveries and couriers • All 3 towers not to exceed 25 Storeys • 3 bedroom units should be offered in each tower, there is a need for larger accommodations • Hundreds of residents, some with mobility restrictions able to evacuate these towers in case of fire or other emergencies? Traffic congestion — logistic issue adding another 667 vehicles? 1150 units will add to traffic gridlock with home deliveries and couriers Transportation Impact Study project # 200387 This study is missing very important facts. From 199 Victoria Street South to just pass 280 Victoria Street South there is hourl gridlock. The traffic and parking study submitted is dated 2016. Victoria Street is a Regional Road yet there is no study included. The information below will show my traffic study. CN Spur line (as indicated in a report) causes stopped traffic in both directions on Victoria Street South. This backs up traffic flow at the lights at Victoria Street South & West/Strange Street and the lights at Page 293 of 520 Victoria Street South and Park Street. As I write this (November 18/21 @2:55 pm ) there was a train that crossed Victoria Street South at Walnut Street. It was a long train and lasted for 2 minutes & 24 seconds. I timed it while I waited to turn right from Victoria Street South to Walnut Street. The only mention in the study about railway crossings was how often the "noise of signals" would impact future residents.. nothing about traffic flow. TrO y/sto p� fie u On Victoria Street South just passed lights at West/Strange Street intersection, heading towards Belmont Ave., the Iron Horse Trail meets Victoria Street South. Drivers stop for pedestrian traffic (no flashing yellow activated pushbutton here) and drivers (following behind) are forced to stop in the middle of this intersection when the light changes to red. C No flow of traffic if a driver stops in either direction for pedestrians AND a train is crossing at Victoria Street South and Walnut Street. 199 Victoria Street South Dan's Windows and Doors. Very busy business. Transport , 5 -ton , vans, and company vehicles coming and going 6 days a week. There are a number of times M -F that transport trucks block Victoria Street South. There is a large dumpster through the week, that has to be emptied. With all these vehicles, plus garbage trucks (for two apartment buildings behind Dan's) Victoria Street South cannot absorb any more vehicle traffic. Page 294 of 520 Thank you for taking the time to read my input. I would like to be added to a list about 1) a meeting with all of Ward 9 people to meet with this developer 2) if a traffic study with be re -visited 3) when a decision has been made. Regards, Page 295 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:30 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on the Proposal for a Development at Victoria Street and Park Street Attachments: Park Victoria development.pdf Hello Eric, My comments on the proposal for a development at Victoria Street and Park Street are in the attached document. Page 296 of 520 Comments with respect to Notice of Development Application for 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street. I'm glad that the city planning department and council will consider feedback from the public on the proposal for the development at the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street. As with most recent intensification developments in downtown and midtown Kitchener, the interests of the developer, council and residents are likely to be in conflict. I hope that in this case councilors from outside the affected ward will respond to the concerns of residents with the same consideration and support they give to the residents of their wards when faced with development concerns. It is daunting for residents like myself to fully understand the Urban Design Report prepared by the developer. The background information needed to assess the report takes a great deal of time and doggedness to acquire. It is difficult to comment on things like appropriate yard setbacks and tower offsets. What is easy for anyone to understand is that this is a massive development which raises a fundamental question: should a three tower development of 38 stories be allowed in this location? My position is no. This is not a matter of negotiating the lopping off of a few stories to appease the concerns of residents. This a matter of planning for a more appropriated midrise development. Great mid -rise buildings are a vital component to any well-designed city. They are the bonding agent that links together downtowns with central neighbourhoods and intensification areas with low-rise communities. They create and reinforce the urban fabric in ways that make a city feel seamless, contiguous and crafted to the scale of the human experience. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Page 116 Page 297 of 520 Zoning Regulations for the Site. The developer's report fails to include details on the current zoning of the properties. It does state that the properties are in the Urban Growth Centre and zoned MU -1 and MU -2. Here are some of the regulations for both the old and new mixed use zones. Regulations MU -1 MU -2 MIX -2 MIX -3 1.5 Minimum front yard 1.5 1.5 1.5 setback Minimum exterior 9,5 1.5 1,5 I'S side yard setback Minimum rearyard 7,5 7.5 7,5 75 setback Minimum yard 7,5 715 7.5 setback abutting residential zone 13.5 24 25 32 Maximum building height 8 10 Maximum number of stories Maximum number of 5 6 stories in the base of a mid -rise building or tall building. Minimum street line 3 stepback for mid -rise buildings and tall buildings a Maximum floor space 2 2 ratio Minimum landscaped 10 10511 15 area In addition to these regulations, the City of Kitchener Official Plan — Mixed Use district policies support a mid -rise development on the site. 15.D.4.19. maximum Floor Space Ratio of up to 4.0 will apply to individual properties where higher density development or redevelopment is desirable and appropriate. 15.D.4.20 City may, provided that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied, consider a maximum Floor Space Ratio up to 5.0 if the development or redevelopment: a) is designed to LEED certification standard or equivalent building rating system;, b) incorporates a below -grade parking structure, public amenity area, cultural heritage resource and/or public art; and/or, c) contains a food store located internal to a mixed use development. 15.D.4.22. Generally no building will exceed: a) 10 storeys or 32 metres in height, whichever is greater, at the elevation, on lands designated Mixed Use identified as a City Node, or Community Node on Map 2. b) 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is greater at the highest grade elevation, on lands designated Mixed Use as a Urban Corridor on Map 2. c) 4 storeys or 14 metres in height. whichever is Page 298 of 520 greater, at the highest grade elevation on lands designated Mixed Use identified as a Neighbourhood Node on Map 2. 15.D.4.23. Notwithstanding Policy 15.D.4.22, the City may consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units. It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied. Obviously, the proposed development doesn't comply with the current zoning and exploits every inch/cm of the site. The developer is applying for a floor space ratio of 11.6 and the project design includes towers 215 meters in height. This is not surprising based on the other developments that have been permitted on Victoria Street. Unlike the other developments on Victoria Street, this site requires a mid -rise design which provides a transition to the new high-rise developments on Victoria and the low-rise nature of Park Street both above and below Victoria Street. What this corner doesn't need is another 1 Victoria Street; a development that was touted as the Majestic Entrance to Downtown and that resulted in a bland, featureless, windswept corner that pedestrians detest. Due to the strong seasonal winds and the effect of corner acceleration, wind conditions are expected to be less than ideal near building corners during the winter. Urban Design Report. Innovations Developments. Kitchener Limited. August 2021. Page 34. The site is within the mixed-use corridor which is planned to transition to different intensities of mixed use -development. The proposed development fails to provide a transition either to the developments west nor a transition to the residential streets that lead to Victoria Park. The Urban Design Report fails to recognize Victoria Park, the Victoria Park Neighbourhood and the Cherry Park neighbourhood as part of the surrounding context of the development. The impact on the neighbourhood is made worse by a design that positions the tallest buildings on Park Street, this being done to maximize the future development of an additional property on Victoria. Park Street is treated as a side alley. Which Way to Appropriate TranSitrons? h161f f+.� �IIy/-449n 1 [I L Ijx F n! bi Image Source: PARTS Urban Design Brief Page 3 1 6 Page 299 of 520 Trees and Green Space The Urban Design Report acknowledges that nearly all of the 51 trees on the site are to be removed. The Arborist Assessment from the GSP Group in a letter to the city, dated May 28, 2021, reports that the removal of trees from the site will be compensated for, in the form of planting on site, on city property adjacent to the site and cash in lieu. The city's practice of accepting cash in lieu of landscaped green spaces provides no benefit to the residents in the downtown and midtown neighbourhoods. Healthy trees provide multiple benefits including cooling the air through evapotranspiration, absorbing radiation and heat with the leaves during the hottest months with the highest UV index, and absorbing, reflecting, scattering, and transmitting income UV rays prior to reaching the paved surfaces under the tree. They offer other benefits as well, such as reducing the amount of storm water that enters the municipal waste water system... On Shade and Shadow: A case study on the impacts of overshadowing by tall buildings on Toronto's greenspaces. Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition. 2018. There are no trees planned for Park Street, a design that is detrimental to what is currently a tree lined street. Tree lined is a salient characteristic of Park Street and this should not be compromised especially by accepting cash in lieu. The city's Urban Forest Strategy spotlights the importance the urban forest on private lands yet this developer offers little in that regard. The urban forest is important for heat mitigation and carbon reduction. The Urban Design Report does not measure the area of the development that will be landscaped. (Zoning Regulations require 10% ) Several design features indicate that ground level landscaping will be the least possible. These include: + deficiencies in separation between towers, Page 416 Page 300 of 520 • the building base situated at the property line on both Victoria Street and Park Street, + the building base situated tight to the eastern and northeastern property boundaries • a continuous concrete paved design stretching the private property line The Victoria Park Neighbourhood is deficient in greenspace. In the Staff Report: Infrastructure Services Department Report to Council, the city's staff concluded that Without significant intervention, the parkland deficit in these already deficient communities will worsen. Using policies and regulations in place, city planners and councillors can ensure that the development on the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street contributes to the urban forest and greenspaces in the downtown and midtown neigbourhoods. All sites are to be comprehensively landscaped including substantial tree planning, generous landscape buffers, and planting beds which provide screening between pedestrian pathways and drive aisles, parking areas and site function and servicing elements. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Intensification. The need for housing is pressing and this proposal is compelling in that respect. But this project exploits that need. The Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2021 Annual Monitoring Report shows that the city is on target to meet residential and employment growth targets. Notably, the number of residents and jobs per hectare in the Urban Growth Centre is 212 RJs/ha, surpassing the provincially mandated target of 200RJs/ha by 2031. In addition, the City's current intensification level of 67% exceeds the Regional intensification target and existing land use and density policies support future intensification practices. That is, a development with a floor space ratio of 11 is not needed to address the intensification goals of the city. The site at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street should be developed in accordance with current zoning regulations, that will limit the vertical clutter that is now becoming the city's skyline, add to the missing middle of mid -rise buildings in downtown and midtown Kitchener, and, in a city now dominated by black glass condo towers, provide a more human scale design for the gateway to Victoria Park. ...it's up to council to balance a reasonable level of intensification without disrupting communities. Councilor Davey. Kitchener Record. June 2021 Page 301 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 11:24 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria St. S Development Eric, As a resident of downtown Kitchener for the last 12 years, my husband and I have been huge supporters of the DTK and the development around us. We live on Oak St. and have endured at least six years of steady construction noise, not to mention the dirt and debris in our yard, our windows, our solar panels, cars, etc.. ( 1 Victoria, the LRT, Google, Deloitte and the 3 condo's in the Garment district). Even with the constant noise and inconvenience of lane closures on Victoria St, we are excited about the growth of DTK and the foot traffic that will surely support the restaurant and shop owners. That being said, with my husband retiring soon, we purchased a Garment street condominium and carefully selected our unit to maximize the view and enjoy the sunlight/setting sun and enjoy an easy lifestyle. Enter the application for 146 Victoria St. and that now turns our dreams to dust. I am sure many other (Westmount facing) condo owners will react with dismay when they learn of this 38 story building that will put us all in the shade and take away the views. Not to mention several more years of construction noise and dirt directly outside our balcony. Very upsetting. With all the Covid-19 restriction delays we haven't even moved in yet, but the excitement we felt is fading away. Currently there over 10+ high rise buildings on the go, so I don't see the point of another large condominium in this area. Victoria Street is already a nightmare and pinches to a one lane right at the end of our street due to construction at the Huck Glove. I am constantly watching condo residents struggle to get out of the driveway as it is. I see too many close calls as I am waiting myself to get out of my street. ( Let me insert here that turning Joseph St. into a one way has been a nightmare for us. We are forced out on to Victoria St. to turn either right or left now. It is horrible. We are very close to the traffic light at Joseph and it is hard to get out. Why the city changed the street direction for a bike lane is beyond me. Cyclists already had the right of way on Joseph St. with green, painted signs on the road. I have not seen one bike use the lane between Victoria and Linden Streets. Why would a cyclist even consider venturing out onto Victoria Street? It's not safe. We always used Joseph and Francis St. as our route to avoid Victoria St. and for a matter of 6-8ft, we cannot use Francis St. It is extremely frustrating and just adds to the congestion on Victoria St. Now special snow plowing will be required $$$). The list goes on. It's time for the city to be considerate of the downtown locals, but we know this will not happen. This development will keep moving forward regardless of any feedback from the residents. Case in point, we opposed the Joseph St. bike lane that didn't need to happen, really. I've seen a few cars in the bike lanes so people are confused by it. Sadly, we will contemplate selling our condo when this plan gets approved. Sincerely, Page 302 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:51 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 146 Victoria St. S. OPA 21/011/V/ES and ZBA21/017/V/ES Dear Eric and Debbie, I am a resident of downtown kitchener and I am in support of developments such as this. I have seen a petition circulated and directed to the addresses to whom this email is directed. Their main concerns are shadows, height, and traffic and I would like to refute the issues they bring up because for one, I believe that these concerns are opposite to mine and my community's interests, and because I believe these concerns are, at least in part, argued in bad faith. While I do have concerns regarding the provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities and provision of family sized units, I recognize that this is an important development. We are in twin housing and climate crises. We absolutely must build a huge number of new houses, and we have to do it in a transformative way that encourages active transportation. If we only take half -measures, we won't have accomplished anything. First, I would like to refute complaints about shadows, height, and traffic because I believe these are bad -faith arguments: 1. Shadows: This development is on the North corner of the intersection, meaning that shadows are already mitigated. I also find that I seek out shade in the blazing heat of the summer, especially on wide barren roads like Victoria. Sure, the idea of having sunlight on the street is great, but in practice people prefer shade. I get it, but also: tree -lined streets are shaded and desired; narrow streets in the old parts of European towns are desired. I don't think the anti -shade argument is cohesive, and I prefer shade. If I want to absorb sunlight, I will go to the park. I think that living downtown carries with it the expectation that you might have to grow shade -loving plants in your garden. 2. Height: I would prefer if this was 15 storeys or something, but to put in the same number of units at 15 storeys, in our current planning regime would be a long process, and physically disruptive for longer and in more places. Having 4 equally sized lots for 15 storey structures would receive just as much pushback, which we see constantly in Kitchener (Belmont, Queen/Mill, Weber/Queen). This lot is also perfectly placed for height. To the north is a parking lot and other towers, South west along victoria is going to be more development, and existing 10 storey towers in the park, and north west is train tracks. The argument against height is often effectively that it is an eyesore, which I could say for 90% of suburban commercial development and roadways, but oddly we never hear about. 3. Traffic. Victoria is a busy street. However, this street goes straight through the heart of downtown, and will lead directly to the transit terminal, the centre of pedestrian transportation. Expanding road access to cars when we also want it to be used by pedestrians and transit users does not make sense. To make traffic better, we must encourage more pedestrians and cyclists by making the pedestrian space along victoria better, by reducing car speeds even more, and continuing to provide residential buildings that do not provide parking. The amount of singles, professionals, young people and otherwise who don't want or need a car, who can work at a tech company downtown or commute to school who could live here is great. Drivers who want to go fast have alternate routes, if they want to be downtown, they can slow down. In sum, the problem they identify that traffic is getting worse is that they won't be able to drive as fast, which is in conflict with mine and every other pedestrian's need for safety. Increasing "traffic" (slowing cars down) is what I want for this area. 2016 Census data shows that roughly 1/3 commuters in Wards 9 and 10 (downtown Kitchener) commute by active transportation, a statistic that does not include children, or those who do not commute. Other miscellaneous things that I've seen against development like this: Page 303 of 520 Cars will park in the neighbourhood: I don't have a car and would love to live here. If people have a car and choose to live here, they would probably also figure out a more permanent parking solution than street parking. Also, street parking is legal. Residents don't have a personal claim to on -street parking How will they get groceries without a car: there's loads of options to get food downtown. If not downtown, the bus takes you directly to several grocers from this location. There are some arguments against development like this that I agree with. This development should be required to have provisions for more 3+ bedroom units. Families need these units and there currently is barely any of that being made in apartments downtown. I would also argue that these larger units can be more affordable for renters. two or three bedrooms units are more affordable for people to share and split the costs with a roommate than it is for them to afford a single bedroom apartment. It's also more flexible throughout the life of a renter or owner. I also want to see more for bikes, both within the building and in the roadways around it. There should be more spaces provisioned for safe bike storage than for cars. Lots of people will have more than one bike (for winter and summer), and families or roommates each require personal bike spots. Also, there should be space for different types of bikes, like cargo bikes. Additionally, this lot is in the centre of the developing cycling network. If the city didn't ask for at minimum 1:1 bike parking to units (or 1:1 bike parking to bedrooms), this would be a huge missed opportunity. This lot is less than 800 metres from central station, but victoria feels like a dangerous place to be. The new route behind the Home Hardware almost doubles the distance. Make the street safer, slower, and better for pedestrians and bikes. With a modest growth forecast of the 2009 Regional Official Plan of around 2%, or around 5000 new residents a year, we would need two or three developments like this every yearjust to keep pace with population growth and still not alleviate the housing crisis. If we required developments like this to be a third the height and number of units, we would need 6 to 9 more developments. The resistance to these is often based on bad faith reasons, like the above arguments against shadows, character, and traffic, and these arguments would be presented even if the heights were reduced, as can be seen in similar developments, like the one on Weber Street which is only proposed to be 19 storeys, or on Belmont which is smaller still. These arguments, I think, have become a shorthand or buzzword to say that people don't like it, and that is simply not productive. Similar ones were used for the Mill and Queen development, even though a tower of nearly equivalent height was across the street and has been for decades. I don't want to defend mega developments. They don't need me to do that. My ideal solution would be to only have 5-6 storey developments with 20-50 units and little to no parking to accommodate all the new residents, but this would require 100 new developments every year all over downtown for the foreseeable future, which is simply not likely. Unless those arguing against tall towers actively support and help expedite developments like this, tall towers like this are the best option. I apologize for this long rant, but my purpose is to provide a counter -voice to all the NIMBY opposition to housing, which does nothing to improve the city except maintaining the status quo for those who are already comfortable. I'm frustrated at how discussion around height and traffic drowns out substantive discussion around livability, safety, and confronting the dual crises of housing and climate. Let's frame this proposed development, and every one that follows, on those things. If you would like to talk more about my comments, I'd be happy to discuss Thank you for taking the time to read. n Page 304 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:09 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria development In response to the mail out we received last week about this development, we wonder why such a misrepresentation of the plans passed any scrutiny. The picture shows 2 towers and possibly a third tower if one were to interpret the left hand side of the larger tower, not as balconies as shown on the right side, but as a hidden third tower. The words below the picture imply that the development is only one tower with 38 stories so we can assume that the second tower in the picture is not part of the development. We also wonder how any developer can cram over 1100 residential units into 38 stories unless they are tiny units, suitable only for one person per unit at the most. According to the VPNA newsletter which came only days after this mail out, the development is actually 3 towers of different heights with the highest projected to be 38 stories. This seems much more likely if one were to try to fit in 1150 units but there is no mention of 3 towers in the official mail out from the planning department. Is the planning department not aware of the proposed smaller towers? It seems that the normal negotiation dance between developers, planners, politicians and the public is underway. The developer asks for far more than they think will realistically be allowed and they need zoning and planning changes so that the project is viable. After all the sham public consultations are completed, the developer then makes some concessions to make it look like they have responded to the planning departments' concerns and the usual public outcry. We realize that this is a rather cynical view of the planning process but this process seems to be the normal course of events recently. The misrepresentation of the actual plans in this mail out can only contribute to public cynicism regarding the ongoing development in Kitchener. It doesn't seem very difficult to have a picture with 3 towers and a short description of their heights and unit capacity unless the intent was to mislead the people receiving the mail out. More than likely there will be many concerns expressed by people who live close to this project and it seems even more likely that people will have even more concerns about the whole process when the true scale of the project becomes known. Why would the planning department set themselves up for greater public outcry? Page 305 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 1Z:5b Fivi To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St. South/92-110 Park St. Good morning Eric, I recently received the notification about the proposed development listed above. I am the owner of a house a1 After studying the proposed plans for the corner site, while I have no objections to development, I do strongly feel the height of the three buildings should be reassessed and definitely reduced to a more logical height to suit the circumstances. I do believe we will be facing a traffic nightmare in this area - not only during construction - but also afterwards due to the constriction created by the narrowing lanes on Victoria Street and the limitations existing on Park Street. While I do not fully agree with this development being situated here, I am also aware that available housing is a critical issue locally and my one voice is not going to dramatically change the 'tides of development'. However, I do believe that some common sense should be applied in this situation and consideration given to constructing a cluster of buildings that are not 'skyscrapers' in the middle of a residential neighborhood!! Yours truly, Page 306 of 520 Comments with respect to Notice of Development Application for 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street. I'm glad that the city planning department and council will consider feedback from the public on the proposal for the development at the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street. As with most recent intensification developments in downtown and midtown Kitchener, the interests of the developer, council and residents are likely to be in conflict. I hope that in this case councilors from outside the affected ward will respond to the concerns of residents with the same consideration and support they give to the residents of their wards when faced with development concerns. It is daunting for residents like myself to fully understand the Urban Design Report prepared by the developer. The background information needed to assess the report takes a great deal of time and doggedness to acquire. It is difficult to comment on things like appropriate yard setbacks and tower offsets. What is easy for anyone to understand is that this is a massive development which raises a fundamental question: should a three tower development of 38 stories be allowed in this location? My position is no. This is not a matter of negotiating the lopping off of a few stories to appease the concerns of residents. This a matter of planning for a more appropriated midrise development. i 'rr Great mid -rise buildings are a vital component to any well-designed city. They are the bonding agent that links together downtowns with central neighbourhoods and intensification areas with low-rise communities. They create and reinforce the urban fabric in ways that make a city feel seamless, contiguous and crafted to the scale of the human experience. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. 1 1 6 Page 307 of 520 Zoning Regulations for the Site. The developer's report fails to include details on the current zoning of the properties. It does state that the properties are in the Urban Growth Centre and zoned MU -1 and MU -2. Here are some of the regulations for both the old and new mixed use zones. Regulations MU -1 MU -2 M[X-2 Mlx-3 Minimum front yard 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 __setback Minimum exterior 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 side yard setback Minimum rear yard 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 setback Minimum yard 7.5 7.5 7.5 setback abutting residential zone 2.1 Maximum building 13.5 25 32 height Maximum number of S 10 stories l`. Maximum number of 6 stories in the base of a mid -rise building or tall building. _ Minimum street line 3 stepback for mid -rise buildings and tall buildings Maximum floor space 2 ratio -,. !".. Minimum landscaped x09b 15% Z. In addition to these regulations, the City of Kitchener Official Plan — Mixed Use district policies support a mid -rise development on the site. 15.D.4.19. maximum Floor Space Ratio of up to 4.0 will apply to individual properties where higher density development or redevelopment is desirable and appropriate. 15.D.4.20 City may, provided that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied, consider a maximum Floor Space Ratio up to 5.0 if the development or redevelopment: a) is designed to LEED certification standard or equivalent building rating system;, b) incorporates a below -grade parking structure, public amenity area, cultural heritage resource and/or public art; and/or, c) contains a food store located internal to a mixed use development. 15.D.4.22. Generally no building will exceed: a) 10 storeys or 32 metres in height, whichever is greater, at the elevation, on lands designated Mixed Use identified as a City Node, or Community Node on Map 2. b) 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is greater at the highest grade elevation, on lands designated Mixed Use as a Urban Corridor on Map 2. c) 4 storeys or 14 metres in height. whichever is Page 308 of 520 greater, at the highest grade elevation on lands designated Mixed Use identified as a Neighbourhood Node on Map 2. 15.D.4.23. Notwithstanding Policy 15.D.4.22, the City may consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units. It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied. Obviously, the proposed development doesn't comply with the current zoning and exploits every inch/cm of the site. The developer is applying for a floor space ratio of 11.6 and the project design includes towers 122 meters in height. This is not surprising based on the other developments that have been permitted on Victoria Street. Unlike the other developments on Victoria Street, this site requires a mid -rise design which provides a transition to the new high-rise developments on Victoria and the low-rise nature of Park Street both above and below Victoria Street. What this corner doesn't need is another 1 Victoria Street; a development that was touted as the Majestic Entrance to Downtown and that resulted in a bland, featureless, windswept corner that pedestrians detest. Due to the strong seasonal winds and the effect of corner acceleration, wind conditions are expected to be less than ideal near building corners during the winter. Urban Design Report. Innovations Developments. Kitchener Limited. August 2021. Page 34. The site is within the mixed-use corridor which is planned to transition to different intensities of mixed use -development. The proposed development fails to provide a transition either to the developments west nor a transition to the residential streets that lead to Victoria Park. The Urban Design Report fails to recognize Victoria Park, the Victoria Park Neighbourhood and the Cherry Park neighbourhood as part of the surrounding context of the development. The impact on the neighbourhood is made worse by a design that positions the tallest buildings on Park Street, this being done to maximize the future development of an additional property on Victoria. Park Street is treated as a side alley. Which Way to Appropriate Transitions` II �O 0 IS I+ + !tl riYW Page 3 16 Page 309 of 520 Trees and Green Space The Urban Design Report acknowledges that nearly all of the 51 trees on the site are to be removed. The Arborist Assessment from the GSP Group in a letter to the city, dated May 28, 2021, reports that the removal of trees from the site will be compensated for, in the form of planting on site, on city property adjacent to the site and cash in lieu. The city's practice of accepting cash in lieu of landscaped green spaces provides no benefit to the residents in the downtown and midtown neighbourhoods. Healthy trees provide multiple benefits including cooling the air through evapotranspiration, absorbing radiation and heat with the leaves during the hottest months with the highest UV index, and absorbing, reflecting, scattering, and transmitting income UV rays prior to reaching the paved surfaces under the tree. They offer other benefits as well, such as reducing the amount of storm water that enters the municipal waste water system... On Shade and Shadow: A case study on the impacts of overshadowing by tall buildings on Toronto's greenspaces. Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition. 2018. There are no trees planned for Park Street, a design that is detrimental to what is currently a tree lined street. Tree lined is a salient characteristic of Park Street and this should not be compromised especially by accepting cash in lieu. The city's Urban Forest Strategy spotlights the importance the urban forest on private lands yet this developer offers little in that regard. The urban forest is important for heat mitigation and carbon reduction. The Urban Design Report does not measure the area of the development that will be landscaped. (Zoning Regulations require 10% ) Several design features indicate that ground level landscaping will be the least possible. These include: deficiencies in separation between towers, Page 310 of 520 • the building base situated at the property line on both Victoria Street and Park Street, • the building base situated tight to the eastern and northeastern property boundaries • a continuous concrete paved design stretching the private property line The Victoria Park Neighbourhood is deficient in greenspace. In the Staff Report: Infrastructure Services Department Report to Council, the city's staff concluded that Without significant intervention, the parkland deficit in these already deficient communities will worsen. Using policies and regulations in place, city planners and councillors can ensure that the development on the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street contributes to the urban forest and greenspaces in the downtown and midtown neigbourhoods. All sites are to be comprehensively landscaped including substantial tree planning, generous landscape buffers, and planting beds which provide screening between pedestrian pathways and drive aisles, parking areas and site function and servicing elements. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Intensification. The need for housing is pressing and this proposal is compelling in that respect. But this project exploits that need. The Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2021 Annual Monitoring Report shows that the city is on target to meet residential and employment growth targets. Notably, the number of residents and jobs per hectare in the Urban Growth Centre is 212 RJs/ha, surpassing the provincially mandated target of 200RJs/ha by 2031. In addition, the City's current intensification level of 67% exceeds the Regional intensification target and existing land use and density policies support future intensification practices. That is, a development with a floor space ratio of 11 is not needed to address the intensification goals of the city. The site at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street should be developed in accordance with current zoning regulations, that will limit the vertical clutter that is now becoming the city's skyline, add to the missing middle of mid -rise buildings in downtown and midtown Kitchener, and, in a city now dominated by black glass condo towers, provide a more human scale design for the gateway to Victoria Park. ...it's up to council to balance a reasonable level of intensification without disrupting communities. Councilor Davey. Kitchener Record. June 2021 516 Page 311 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 3:48 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Neighbourhood development at Park and Victoria St. Good afternoon Eric, I took some time and looked over the submission by the planners regarding parking at the new development at Park and Victoria. I understand what they've written and how they're justifying the number of spaces they've planned for residential use but I still disagree. They have picked a few buildings in various places where fewer tenants have cars, or maybe there hitt never was space for them, I don't know how they picked those particular buildings. Presently I live at , less than a block from the proposed new development. I spoke to the building manager here about their experience with parking and find that there is one underground parking space per unit, some of which are tandem spaces able to hold two cars. The demographic in the two buildings here, 205 and 215 Victoria St. S., is more of the older retired age and I know of a few that don't drive any more, however younger couples and families are moving into the building and they often have two cars. Fortunately there is some surface parking here that can accommodate those needs and those of visitors. My comments here are selfish and I won't try to hide that. It has happened in the past that surface parking here has been taken up by people who don't belong here are taking space that might be needed for visitors that are here legitimately. As I'm sure you're aware, there is very little parking in this area other than the municipal lot off Park St. It's kind of awkward to tell visitors that they have to pay the city for parking when spaces they should have been able to use are taken by people who haven't properly planned for in a development. The other thing that crosses my mind is what the target demographic might be in the mind of the developer of this project? I don't imagine that they are planning a low rent building by the look of all the amenities and such, so I would guess that they are targeting the up and coming of the area, perhaps people coming from Toronto. Will those people not have cars? It seems far fetched to believe that people in that demographic would move here where, although we have Grand River Transit, the intercity options are limited and cumbersome without having a vehicle. I realize that the world is changing but I wonder how fast that will happen? The other issue to consider is traffic and with the increased number of vehicles using this stretch of Victoria St., specifically from Joseph St. - Strange St., because of the vastly increased number of residential units along this stretch of street. This particular development will add significantly to a situation that can be difficult at times, and that's before the buildings currently under construction have been occupied. The present situation has been exacerbated by the lane closure that is in effect but in the long term the traffic is going to get difficult to manage without the additional buildings that are in development now. I suppose infrastructures will also have to be updated, likely sooner than later, to accommodate the new growth so there will be extreme traffic issues while that happens. Thank you for listening to my thoughts. > On Nov 10, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: > Thanks for providing comments for this application. Page 312 of 520 > I can provide some more details about the applicants proposal for parking: > 667 Total Car Parking Spaces > 617 for residential units > 50 for Commercial units. > So there are parking spaces proposed to be provided for the commercial units on the ground floor. > More information can be found on the StoryMaps section of our website, linked below. This has all of the documents that the applicant submitted so that residents can review. The Planning Justification Report contains many more details about the parking. https:Hurldefense.com/v3/_https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/bb2db3e6lbdO43209clfl6dl6a3cedOc/J!!E1 9_NBbORQ!V4fyVdgkeFJler4MIGvOk6gORrArP6g7BsF3oM_b9eOk2hLlxrZeJjCFgSa2QkheL4LH6sc$ > I hope that helps in addressing your concern, but please reach out if you have any additional questions. Thanks again for providing comments for this application. > Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP > Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener > (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider@kitchener.ca > > > -----Original Message----- • From: > Sent: Monday, November 8, 20218:01 PM > To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Neighbourhood development at Park and Victoria St. > Good Day, > I received a card in my mail box today about the proposed new development at the corner of Victoria and Park streets. It looks like quite a building and it will be interesting to see how it effects the neighbourhood. The one thing that stands out to me in the very little bit of information that the card holds is that there will be only 667 car parking spots for 1150 residential units, which I suppose would not include and parking for the other uses that are also in the building. It would seem that that would leave a lot of people without a parking space in an area where parking does not seem that plentiful. It would also seem that any commercial enterprises in the building would have a hard time accommodating customer parking and I wonder what effect that may have on the ability of any business to succeed. I would be interested in attending a meeting or hearing more about the details of what is happening with this development. > > Thank you, D. Page 313 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Please see attached letter Warmlv, Wednesday, November 24, 2021 7:55 PM Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; [EXTERNAL] Proposed Development Victoria & Park Streets letter re Victoria & Park Streets Development.docx Page 314 of 520 Hello Eric Schneider, Debbie Chapman and Kevin Muir, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development, a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid -rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener -Waterloo Region, DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos, though, it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline. According to the design report, the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street, as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of 205 Victoria Street South, I am very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street, through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park (see a summary below); however, these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes. The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself. Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. + 1 Victoria — 19 storeys — completed in 2016 1'] + One Hundred Tower A — 21 storeys — completed in 2020 N One Hundred Tower B — 17 storeys — completed in 2020 N • Garment St Condos — 28 storeys — complete in 2021 N The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storeys, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid -rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. ■ Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Page 315 of 520 Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South of 215 Victoria Street South — Victoria Park Place I — 7 storeys [21 205 Victoria Street South — Victoria Park Place II — 9 storeys 131 241 Victoria Street South — Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 — 7 storeys 141 243 Victoria Street South — Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 — 6 storeys 141 Queen Street South sg com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers — 15 storeys [51 310 Queen Street South — Victoria Park Towers — 14 storeys [6] 290 Queen Street South — Victoria Place Retirement Community — 7 storeys 141 214 Queen Street South — the York — 6 storeys [41 South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen — 6 storeys [8] 307 Queen Street South — Bread and Roses — 6 storeys [71 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers — 17 storeys M Sources: / 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo_Regional_Munici aliFy 2. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria _park -place -i 3. https://www.drewloholdin sg com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually 5. https://www.drewlohol_dings.com/apartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. https://www.breadandroses.coo / 8. https://barracondos.com/a_bout-barra/ Page 316 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 9:45 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street Hi Eric, A couple of weeks ago I received the application for development post card regarding the proposed development on the corner of Victoria and Park. I normally don't provide my opinion, but while going for a walk today I noticed someone defaced the proposal development sign objecting the proposal. After seeing this I felt I needed to express my approval of this development and it should not be compromised by a handful of people. I find its always a small vocal population that are not directly impacted are usually the individuals who put the brakes or compromise good proposed developments in this city, especially in the downtown area. Based on the information, I would say this one is one of the better ones. I like to think I am pretty knowledgeable about this city, especially the downtown core. I was born and raised in this city. I have seen it go through a lot of changes in 34 years. I grew up in the Auditorium area. I have great memories of walking downtown as a child to visit the market and the many retail shopes that once lined King during the tailend of their existence. Attended the downtown St. Mary's High School location in its final year before having to head to the Charles Street terminal everyday to catch the bus to the new location on Block Line. My part- time job from 15 to 20 years of age was at the now extinct New Dominion Bakery on 110 Victoria Street South and now I currently live on the same plot of land. I have witnessed the downtown go from an enjoyable place to walk around in the early 90's to a depressed ghost town. 'things have improved over the years, with a slight road block due to the pandemic. Unfortunately, most people I talk to still think of the downtown as a depressed, drug addict ridden, dangerous, sketchy, nothing to do area regardless of the positive changes. Many of these people continue to choose Uptown over Downtown even though it is the further option. I for one prefer Downtown, but I am in the minority. For the Downtown to get back to the former glory days of the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's when the streets were full of foot traffic the Downtown needs to become a destination. In order to get there, more people need to live in the downtown core. A higher population base will attract more sought after businesses. With more sought after businesses in the area, others from outside the core will want to visit, which will lead to a more sustained stream of people walking the streets. With more people walking the street, the safer the general public will feel. I feel this proposed development is another piece of the puzzle to bring more people downtown and help the downtown economy. (On a side note, all the new businesses and housing can't cater to the same economic demographic. There needs to be a healthy mix or the area will feel artificial and boring. Much like Uptown Waterloo is becoming in my opinion.) Another big reason why I think this development needs to happen and not get scaled back is because there is a housing crisis in this city. More supply in the market should theoretically help slow down how quickly real estate prices are increasing. Also, condos are providing many people with the opportunity of property ownership, because home ownership is becoming a distant dream for many in this city. My only concerns are with more and more people living downtown, Victoria Park will get over crowded on those nice days. The city core will need more outdoor spaces. You can't expect people to be confined to their 500 sgft condo all day, Also, not so much about this development, but future developments should have more affordable housing incorporated into them. When I say affordable I am talking government subsidized level housing. Having all low Page 317 of 520 income housing together In an area just creates a ghetto which leads to worse living conditions, higher crime rates and crime flowing into neighbouring areas. Low income should be mixed with other economic classes. (I know this is a unpopular idea.) Sorry about the long winded email and thank you for your time. Kind Regards, Page 318 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 11:11 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria & Park Development Hello Eric, I am writing to you regarding the proposed development at Victoria & Park. As a young professional who is hoping to continue to live in the Kitchener area, this development is welcomed as I believe we need more housing and further densification within the downtown core. I don't want to get priced out of my hometown, and I hope we can continue to build supply at an equivalent rate of the increase in demand in this city in order to allow young folk like myself the opportunity to continue to live here. Thank vou, Page 319 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 11:57 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park Hi Eric and Debbie, I just wanted to reach out and voice my support for the Victoria and Park project. I am a homeowner nearby (Station Park), also grew up not far from this area. This project is both ambitious and necessary for the growing downtown core. The plans are really interesting and exciting and I look forward to following construction and showing my support for the project. Hoping for some good retail and greenspace within the public realm being created here! If there is anything more I can do to support, please let me know. Thank you, Page 320 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 12:49 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; Subject: (EXTERNAL] Victoria Parks Towers Hello Eric et al I would like to take this opportunity as a citizen of Kitchener to offer a few personal comments on this project. This project as it is currently presented including the design renderings which I have viewed should be supported by the city without any change. The project is both aesthetically pleasing, necessary and functional. Our city is experiencing immense growth which has resulted in a huge deficit of living space. We are becoming a victim of our own success as a city. This is a desirable community that many people want to come and join. It is imperative that we bring as many residential units on stream as soon as possible. This project in my personal opinion, can help the city to meet housing targets. In addition to housing, there is a commercial component on the street level which brings the functional part of the project to my mind. While we need to keep the movement on residential space, we need to encourage and keep providing commercial opportunities as well. The streets of downtown Kitchener (DTK) are rapidly changing, and for the better I add. We need to look to the future and ensure we provide a balance of commercial opportunities in developments along with residential, for future business and a healthy work life balance. I know that there will be objections from a few people in the neighbourhood because it changes their space. However, change is going to happen. We have identified in our Regional and City Master plans that the way to develop is through intensification, which I agree with. Sometimes collateral damage will be at the expense of a few single dwelling homes. I am mindful of these concerns however, change is inevitable. To make subtle changes, like lowering a few floors, or whatever ideas come up is simply an attempt to appease a few at the cost to the developer. Instead of forcing the developer to lower the floors, I say tell them to raise the number of floors and sell more units but include units that are befitting of "affordable housing". In addition, push for more street level experiences through more functional space for the community. I don't want to take too much of your time, but I am tired of the constant "nimbyism" championing change or all out cancelation of projects for selfish reasons. I felt and feel a need to start speaking up on behalf of the many members of this community that want to see progress and change. We want to see our city grow into a progressive city that is the envy of the country. I witnessed a transformational change of our DTK and I want to keep the change happening. It is my goal in the future to live in the DTK, so although I am not there now, I look to the future when I will be. Please consider other perspectives on development and allow this project to move forward as is or even bigger Thank you, Page 321 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 1:47 PM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Cc: kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146- 162 Victoria Street proposal Hi there, I wanted to add my voice in support of this proposal. As someone who currently rents in downtown Kitchener, I would love the opportunity to actually own my own property at some point in the future. Due to demand for property, we need to intensify the downtown and build up, not out. This proposal, while imperfect, would help us reach the goal of providing housing to people while preserving the countryside. To improve the proposal I would request : more height and units in return for : - a minimum percentage of 3 bedroom units. - a minimum percentage of affordable units. - sustainable heating and cooling, which means no fossil fuels except maybe as back up. - green roofs - no parking minimums - contribution to creating a second downtown park somewhere nearby. I would really appreciate it if my voice can be added to those in support of this necessary development. Let me know if you have any questions or if I can help in any way. Thanks, Sent from Gmail Mobile on Whone Page 322 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 8:56 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Park and Victoria Development - Victoria Street Road Widening ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 20:49 Subject: Park and Victoria Development - Victoria Street Road Widening To: <ericschneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: Debbie Chapman <debbie.chapman@kitchener.ca> Hello Mr. Schneider and Ms. Chapman, My husband and I have already provided a comment about development at 92-110 Park Street & 146-162 Victoria Street South, but in rereading the planning justification report, I am very concerned about the lack of setback from the road proposed, especially along Victoria Street. The report notes a required road widening of Victoria Street in section 2.1 (p.3), but then it does not seem to be discussed again. It describes a required widening of 250 square meters along Victoria Street, and that the property has 70.9 meters of frontage along Victoria street which would equate to an average of 3.5 meters; approximately another lane of traffic. In Section 8.3, Table 1, states that one of the exemptions sought is to have no setback (0m) along both Park and post - widened Victoria St. From the rendering in Figure 9, that would leave pedestrians with only the space under the cantilevered section of the podium. Figures 5 to 7 show a plan view of the development with the required road widening. This would be very dangerous for pedestrians, and reasonably also to the building. With little setback there is little to no space to escape if a fast moving car were to lose control along this road. The region's plans of having Victoria Street as a fast through road are seemingly at odds with the City's plans to have a less car centric, more walkable and densely inhabited city core. The proposed design of this development is also at odds with creating a more pedestrian and cycling friendly space, as it leaves very little space for pedestrians and cyclists, and there is no planned green space. One of the justifications for having fewer parking stalls than required by zoning is that there will be a lot of bicycle parking, but the development is not contributing to a bicycle friendly streetscape. Even the trees along Victoria Street that are shown in the rendering are impossible to have; as per Figure 9 of the planning justification report, they are shown to either be planted at the edge of the sidewalk or in the road, but even these will be removed when the road is widened. Overall there are so many issues with the proposed development, that it really needs to be drastically rethought to be appropriate for this property. Kind regards, Page 323 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 1:18 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] development at Victoria S and Park St We have lived at 1 for over 30 years.We are concerned about the speed and volume of traffic that this development will incur. The volume will cause more dirt and affect the air quality. The volume of traffic will also make it more difficult to access the park and to get out of our driveway. (Since Joseph St. has become a one way street we are already seeing more traffic on our street.) In winter vehicles tend to come down the hill too quickly and will often slide through the intersection. With the increase in traffic the incidents will become more frequent and more severe. Any pedestrians standing at the bottom will be even more at risk. In summer families with strollers trying to gain access to the park from the geared to income townhouses on have issues crossing the street. (Myself I just look both ways and run quickly to cross) Several years ago I contacted the city about this and they banked the road so that the vehicles could round the curve even quicker. Page 324 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:06 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park St. & Victoria St. Development Hi Eric, Just attended the Victoria Park/Cherry Hill NA meeting regarding this development, and they said to email you here to be added to the distribution list for public notifications. Thank you! Page 325 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:57 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroupca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria Park development. Some comments and concerns regarding the application for Development. FSR of almost 12 is unprecedented and way too much. The urban intensification set by the province is already above 2030 levels. Therefore, we would like to see any development on this property much lower 2 to 5 or 6 FSR. Zero setback seems like it will make the corner more dangerous. Park/green space is already very low. Will the developer commit to funding new park /green space that anyone can use. Will there be any long-term affordable housing included? Not attainable housing in this project. Will these condos have any family size units with larger sq ft. and multiple bedrooms. I've noticed there is only roughly 500 parking spots or for half the units proposed. Government of Canada has called for no more combustion vehicle sales by 2035. How many parking spaces will be roughed in for ev charging. It's a huge expense after the building is complete if spots are not roughed in during construction. look forward to hearing from you. Page 326 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 9:40 AM To; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria Park towers development Hello, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development, a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid -rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener -Waterloo Region, DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos, though, it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline. According to the design report, the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street, as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property, which will be in the shadow of the tower. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street, which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. I am concerned the shadows will greatly impact my ability to grow vegetables and cast shadows on my gardens which have been established here for over 50 years. I am concerned with my family's health and wellbeing as in the winter months I am only left with a 3 -hour window of sunlight if it is even sunny during those hours. In turn, l am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street, through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. I am concerned about the placement of the driveways to enter and exit the buildings. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park (see a summary below); however, these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes. The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! To take a mix3 proposed FSR of 2 and jump it to an FSR of 11.8 for this project is too much for our neighbourhood. I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself. Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. • 1 Victoria -19 storeys - completed in 2016 oi • One Hundred Tower A - 21 storeys -completed in 2020 • One Hundred Tower 8 -17 storeys -completed in 20201,1 • Garment St Condos - 28 storeys - complete in 202111 The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storeys, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Page 327 of 520 Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: + Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid -rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. ■ Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. • Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street. Sincerely, Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place I 7 storeys=, 205 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place II - 9 storeys t3� 241 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys ,< 243 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 - 6 storeys <, Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers -15 storeys 5 310 Queen Street South - Victoria Park Towers - 14 storeys 6 290 Queen Street South - Victoria Place Retirement Community - 7 storeys m 214 Queen Street South - the York - 6 storeys 4� South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen - 6 storeys m 307 Queen Street South - Bread and Roses - 6 storeys [7 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers -17 storeys «, Sources: 1. https:/.Ien.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipality 2. 2s: T1w yw.dreuw1ohoErlin - C.L_).rj1a jrtments-For- • .n hictoria-park-p[ace- 3. https://www.drewloholdings.comLpartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually 5. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towg:l;,,s 6. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. https://www.breadandr2 es.coon/ Page 328 of 520 8. http5;.ifbarracojidnn;,coilliahoiit-ba�rral Page 329 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 10:52 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on Project: 146 Victoria St S ( Application # ZBA21/017/V/ES) Hi Eric, Hope you are doing well. I just wanted to provide comment on the proposed project for 146 Victoria St S ( Application # ZBA21/017/V/ES). I'm a property in Victoria Park & the Civic center. 1100% support this project and any other project like it in the downtown core. We need to focus on density rather than urban sprawl & hope to see more projects like this coming to the downtown area. I know you likely get a lot of angry "not in my backyard" types and thought its important that you hear from neighbors that also support these projects. Thanks for the work you do to keep growing our city in a responsible way. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. Please advise if you require reasonable accommodation or assistance. Page 330 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 1:46 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria Proposed Development I strongly object to the proposed Victoria and Park towers development, a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid -rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener -Waterloo Region, DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos, though, it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline. According to the design report, the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street, as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of Cherry Street, I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property, which will be in the shadow of the tower. It will totally block my view of the morning sunrise which I have enjoyed for the past 21 years living here! I am concerned about the encroachment of multi unit developments into an area of historically significant single dwelling homes .... If this allowed it sets precedence for future developments and land encroachment. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street, which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street, through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. Also the elan states that only 667 parking spaces will be allotted for the 1150 proposed units. It's a huge assumption that only one vehicle is required for every two units! There is already a shortage of parking available in this area and this will only compound the issue! It is understood that these towers will be built in urder to densifjy the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Paris (see a summary below); however, these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes. The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park; 20-:32 storeys higher) Also these!jgii is are typiLd y not gly.rchased bv eo ple Hish i ng tolive in them but SQ- 75% ofthese an!L5 are purcha;.e as irrvestmeeyt l it non I _V resiftr rental Reposes nolo and do nothing to help us with our -current h ususin cj is€s to Qrn_vJde reasonable rent- Thev are being rented out at rates mnst families cannot afford or being used ford f i2BNB rental -, Is there a specified nuH&ey of unitu5 ig these b s that will be used for i2eared to inr i re11tals=ha Cityt�f I{jtchetier really riet ds tai star t rnandati this no these new develop rqcM ts! i! The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 88 storeys, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. Page 331 of 520 With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: Reducing the heights of the towers to a olid -rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. • Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. • Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, P� Virus-free. www.avq.com Page 332 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 4:25 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park Victoria Towers development Eric; Can you add our names to the fist so that all future correspondence regarding this developrnerit is sent to my wife and L We have received the initial development flyer and hope to be kept in the loop of further updates as f do not feel this development meets the needs of Land owners in the immediate area, I am concerned with traffic flaw, access to Victoria Street (from Theresa Street in particular), shadow restrictions to our neighbourhood and overaII density factor. I do not feel that a development approaching 38 floors is an acceptable exception to the current density zoning - Page 333 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 20214:56 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria/Park Towers proposal Hello Eric, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. It is of concern to me that this proposal (like so many others) does not adhere to either the current (or the new, yet to be implemented) Zoning regulations. I support intensification if it abides by the planning and zoning regulations that are in place to protect neighbourhoods. This location is most appropriate for intensification under the above circumstances. The size of the current proposal concerns me for the following reasons: * It will dwarf all of its surroundings * It will create a wind tunnel * It will create shade for neighbouring properties * It includes no green space, and, like all of the other downtown developments, depends on Victoria Park to fulfil that requirement. There is a limit before the park is exhausted. * Traffic on Jubilee is often congested. This will add to that. NOTE: I am not sure when the most recent traffic survey was done, but I recall it being done in the summer and included a long weekend, both factors which contribute to lighter traffic volumes. I appreciate the consultation process and look forward to further discussions. Page 334 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 5:06 PM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at 92-110 Park Street - comments Good afternoon, J am a little nervous offering comments on the proposed building at 92-110 Park street as I am not a city planner nor someone with vast building experience. However, here are my thoughts: -one of the things that drew rte to move here to kiitchener/waterNoo was it's unique features: I liked the low building prefile, the many green spaces, the historical buildings, the green/mature beside the highway, the crops growing in city spaces (who does that? love it 1) - 1 know change is norrnaI and a sign of economic growth, but it would be a sharne to miss out on that integration of nature while densifying each prcaperty. -when I took at the proposed developrnent, it does not look like there will be roorn for the green spaces artistically rendered in the drawing - there is a tree drawn where ttrere is actually a street - victoria to be precise (misrepresentation of both space available, the light around it, 8nd the proximity to nature) this is a shame to lose that connection to nature. One of the points of densification is to preserve natural spaces - it is good. It is important to incorporate this into land development and property development. I do NOT seen fitting in with the beautiful nature of Victoria Park - I see it over shadowing and spoiling the view from the park - perhaps a shorter building would lessen the impact on the park. -another issue: the 1150 proposed units is a lot - the traffic on victoria and on park is already very high - how will this issue be dealt with? -parking: the proposed development only has parking for approximately 50% of the units to have a single vehicle - this is a vehicle driven city; people drive - the surrounding neighbourhoods cannot support that much on street parking. The building should support it's own parking. Externalising that cost to the rest of the neighbourhood residents is immorn!. height: 38 storeys seems taller than everything else near by - this is an excessively high Floor space ratio for this area. -aesthetics - so far the buildings that have gone up in this stretch of Victoria street have not been beautiful (with the exception of the pharmacy building - that is very appealing and interesting) - the new high rises on Victoria are tall and grim and gray - if you are going to build, at least build something that as a city we can be proud to look at and that reflects the history of our city in some way. For the developer, 1:11 is is a project that Jests them a couple Years before they move on and do other things. For those who actually live here, the lack of parking, higher traffic, increased wind, decreased sunlight, and grim construction will be here until we die of old age - not appealing, but appalling. Nevermind the impact of construction on daily quality of life Sincerely, Page 335 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 8:30 PM To; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development on Park and Victoria Dear Eric Schneider, I am writing to address the overwhelming number of concerns I have with the proposed development on the corner of Park and Victoria st. I have read the proposal in it's entirety, and ask that you please do the same with this letter. To begin, the building is far too tall for The Cherry Hill neighbourhood. In the proposal it describes this area as being mixed residential and commercial, but as someone who lives in the neighbourhood and works on Park st., I find this to be misleading. Most of the commercial spaces are actually located in older established homes. These giant buildings will be right in-between Victoria and Cherry Park and as you can see in the drawings is completely surrounded by homes. Buildings should not be getting taller the further they move from the downtown core. My next concern is regarding traffic and parking. This is already an extremely busy intersection. If you add in 1,150 UNITS (not resident's) there is going to be constant congestion, making the area more dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Not to mention all the inconveniences while the construction is taking place, especially due to how close it is to the street. I understand that there is not adequate parking for the residents in order to encourage not having a vehicle but I find it hard to believe that to be the case. I think a lot of people will simply turn to parking on the streets in an area that is already severely lacking parking. Our transit system, while useful, is not a replacement for owning a vehicle, I would know as I have had to rely on it for many years. Anyone spending a large sum of money on a condo likely has a car to leave the city in. The plans to add retail space also baffles me. The current retail building that stands there always have units available for lease. Not to mention downtown King st. Which has countless empty retail storefronts; including Market Square in it's entirety! Everything else seems to be a Cannabis shop. When I first moved to Kitchener I would walk downtown every week to shop at all the local stores with unique clothing and handmade goods. Now there is no reason to venture downtown. We DO NOT lack retail space, we lack stores that can sustain it. Even the Walper Barbers and Tobacco shop have moved from the actual Walper. This will not be a beneficial use of space! The focus should be on building up downtown not residential neighbourhoods. Affordable housing. This proposal talks about having 50 (out of 1,150) one bedroom units for $368,000. I'm not really sure how this is considered "affordable". Perhaps for a bachelor working at Google sure, but I don't believe that is the target audience of affordable housing. If the average 1 bedroom in Ontario is 660 square feet that would put the price to $558/ square foot plus whatever exuberant condo fees you have to pay each month. These units do nothing to support the need for affordable housing. They will likely serve as investment properties or house people coming from Toronto or other big cities, not helping the people who already live in Kitchener and desperately need housing they can actually afford. If anything, they will just drive up the prices of houses and rentals even more. Anyone who can spend half a million dollars on a condo is not in a housing crisis. One of my largest concerns is the wind produced from the buildings. My first apartment in Kitchener was by Fairview Park Mall and to get to it I had to walk between two high rise apartment building. It was my absolute most dreaded part of every day ESPECIALLY in the winter. The wind was so intense it felt like you were going to fall over if you didn't put all your strength against it. Even at The Bauer buildings it feels at times as though you are in a wind tunnel. The proposal's studies on wind say "in the summer...wind speeds are predicted near certain edges and corners on Level 7 outdoor amenity areas resulting in undesired comfort conditions." And "... wind conditions are expected to be less than ideal near building corners during the winter." Do we really want to build a structure a block away from the downtown's largest area of green space with "less than ideal" wind conditions for pedestrians and surely bicyclists as well. This brings me to one of my largest concerns. The complete lack of green space. This building has no plans of adding any green space only uprooting 50 viable trees. Our city is already severely lacking green space and only seems to have plans to take more away, add additional residents to the city, while not putting any back in the downtown area. I go to Victoria Park nearly every day and in the summer it is absolutely jam packed. During the pandemic many of the elderly ones I know that live beside the park didn't even feel comfortable utilizing it because they didn't think proper social distance could be kept between themselves and others. I also had to leave a park this past year (during a lockdown no less) because it was so busy I could barely move around with my stroller. Victoria Park is lovely but it isn't endless. It has size limitations. The City's plan for Green Space is from 2010. This city has grown dramatically since then and as far as in my neighbourhood I have not noticed any plans on expanding green space. Our Government elect is the only elected green party member in Canada so really we should be setting the example when it comes to green space and the environment and it feels as though we are falling more and more behind. In addition to lack of green space is the need for more healthcare services as well. It took me 11 years to get a Family Doctor here. There have been times when I have reached out for certain specialists and not been able to even get on a wait list to see one. No daycare even reached back to me. Having houses for people is one small part of the issue. Being a livable city means just that. You need all the resources in order to support a successful life and well being. My final concern is with the overall design of the building, I understand this is subjective but it is quite important to me because if it is built as per set out it will pretty well be the only thing I can see from my backyard. I don't believe it was designed with any thought to it's surroundings Page 336 of 520 and The Cherry Hill neighbourhood. It is not a timeless design and will look horribly dated in 10 years as well as sticking out vastly from the 100 year old brick homes surrounding it. In summary, I support increasing housing in this city. This should be done in a way that actually assists those who need true affordable housing. It should include increased green space and amenities for residents. It should not negatively impact current neighbourhoods homeowners, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Please be reasonable with the size of these projects. Let's focus on building up the DOWNTOWN, not overtaking the few historic neighbourhoods left in this city. Kitchener used to be cute and have a personality. Now it merely has condos, construction, and cannabis, Let's make this city worth the price we all pay to live here. Sincerely, Page 337 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 2:08 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] PArk&Victoria Towers These towers will destroy a heritage neighbourhood. This is a low rise neighbourhood. The traffic on Park St. will be terrible with all the new people living in. these towers, not to mention the traffic in Victoria Park. There is no way this project should be approved under its current design. Page 338 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 2:09 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed towers at Park and Victoria Hello, I'm writing to voice our concerns regarding the proposed towers at Victoria and Park. As homeowners on Park street between Jubilee and Victoria, this proposed development would directly affect us. 38 storeys is MUCH too high for this neighborhood for both the large shadows it would cast, as well as the traffic this would cause at this already busy intersection. Although development of this area would be welcome, we propose limiting the number of stories - ie no higher than 10 stories. In addition, I am concerned that there is no consideration towards helping our community to achieve family friendly affordable housing. Families need 3 bedrooms as families grow and I see no mention of these unit types in the proposals. I also would urge the city of Kitchener to partner with a community organization (ie Habitat for Humanity) in order to create some percentage of affordable housing units within these large new developments to make sure that working families who can't enter the traditional housing market still have an avenue towards homeownership. I would also urge the city of Kitchener to look at models that exist in other Canadian cities (ie Vancouver) where condo developers must also provide some public art for the city where they are building. Many thanks for your attention towards the concerns of the affected homeowners. Page 339 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 3:40 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development Hello, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development, a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid -rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener -Waterloo Region, DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos, though, it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline. According to the design report, the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street, as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of Park Street I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property, which will be in the shadow of the tower. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street, which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street, through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park, however, these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes. The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself. Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. ■ 1 Victoria - 19 storeys - completed in 2016 t ■ One Hundred Tower A - 21 storeys - completed in 2020m ■ One Hundred Tower B -17 storeys - completed in 2020t1i ■ Garment St Condos - 28 storeys - complete in 2021 The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storeys, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. Page 340 of 520 With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid -rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. • Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. • Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Page 341 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 1:25 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria St Development Proposal Hi Eric, I arr. and am a resident of DTK. Let me tell you a bit about myself. I live a- , with my husbanc ind our 13 year old daughter My husband and myself are self employed and have lived and worked locally for over 20 years. We have lived on for 12 years and absolutely love the diversity and vibrancy of DTK. I am are writing to you with significant concern about the proposed development at 146-162 Victoria St. S. & 92-110 Park St. I received the application for development notice in the mailbox earlier a few weeks back and it has take me some time to digest the information. This letter may sound similar to others you have received from my neighbours - we have done a lot of research in this matter and have shared our resources with one another. I am confident that you are receiving many emails in regards to this application for development, but I hope you understand that I am not opposed to development and intensification in the downtown core. I agree in principal with the goals and strategies of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (along with the various urban design manuals); Region of Waterloo Official Plan; 2019 Growth Plan; 2020 Provincial Policy Statement; and Planning Act provided they are enacted with a long-term vision for what is best for the type of City and community we are shaping for the future. I am looking for the City of Kitchener to guide thoughtful and appropriate development and increased density in the downtown core — added height and density in and of themselves will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. The absurd juxtaposition of three high-rise buildings of the proposed sizes directly adiacent to the low-rise mature neighbourhoods of the Victoria Park Area Herita a Conservation District and Cherry Hill duos not s eak to careful, sustainable, thoughtful and appropriate planning but instead to short-sighted, short-term, and profit oriented thinking. sincerely ask that City Councillors and planners challenge this application for proposed development to acknowledge genuine design concerns posed to characteristics of the community and quality of life by this type of built form. Are high-rise infill developments of this size the only way to increase density? Certainly not. Can we not learn from the experiences of other Canadian cities and cities around the world (e.g. Vancouver, Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam, etc.) who have and are confronting the challenge of intensification with other built -forms (i.e. mid -rise buildings of 5-11 storeys high) to increase density in a way that is more harmonious with the community in which they exist: human - scaled in terms of size; fits into the character of the neighbourhood; animates sidewalk culture; offers a diverse range Page 342 of 520 of units including family -sized options to attract a more diverse population; provides greater flexibility as a building type in order to be more resilient to future modification and adaptation (a key sustainability factor). I am familiar with the Planning Justification Report (PJR) for this proposed development submitted by the Applicant (Kevin Muir, GSP Group). Although, in his opinion, this development "ticks all the boxes" I fail to see how this development ""respect[s] the existing scale, height, building length and massing of the neighbourhood" (from City of Kitchener Design for Residential Infill In Central Neighbourhoods, Urban Design Manual). I realize that the site technically falls into a "Mixed -Use Zoning" but the application is seeking exemptions from several zoning compliance regulations which would actually be appropriate for a site that is directly next to low-rise residential communities along Park St., Theresa St., and Victoria St. For instance: MAX building height of 32M (applicant proposing 82.8m, 115.25m, and 121.75m); MAX number of storeys of 10 storeys (applicant proposing 25, 36 and 38 storeys — above podium!). These heights rival the tallest buildings in the region (DTK Condos at 39 storeys and Charlie West at 31 storeys) which are also arguably too tall but at least do not directly abut low-rise residential neighbourhoods. These proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park — 20-32 storeys higher! As referenced in the PJR, the Kitchener Official Plan Section 11.C.1.31 intends that new buildings are designed and existing buildings are reworked to "enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places" as well as Section 4.C.1.9 which directs that residential intensification and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is to be designed to respect existing character with a "high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context" — I argue that these proposed towers fail to appropriately acknowledge the surrounding context in an insatiable desire for increased floor space and thus profit. The scale, massing, and transition are completely inappropriate for this location and I fail to see how "the proposed building height and scale can be achieved without creating unacceptable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood resulting from the taller building form" (PJR, p.42). The application also references the housing diversity perspective and that it further diversifies the housing stock in DTK with options in unit types and sizes. To be clear, it is offering a "mix" of mostly one -bedroom (two-thirds of inventory) and two-bedroom (one-third of inventory) like most of the other high-rise residential buildings that have recently gone up. Is this really increasing housing diversity? A small one or two bedroom unit in a high-rise building is seldom considered a life-long address for a vast majority of the North American population. So what type of community is the City of Kitchener interested in creating? It would appear one that is more geared to transitory populations who can afford the high price of these units (the small number of affordable units provided aside - all of which are one -bedroom). These are certainly not geared to families or even those looking to downsize. I would argue that a greater supply of mid -rise, medium -density housing options can better solve the affordability, supply, and density needs of our community while fitting into the character of the neighbourhood (at locations throughout the City and Region) and creating a vibrant, healthy, livable, safe and attractive community. With a development of this scale of course I am concerned by a variety of factors such as increased vehicular traffic (poorly accounted for in the PJR and an issue we currently struggle with on Theresa St. in terms of speeding and wrong - way traffic and turning Left onto Victoria from Theresa Street is next to impossible already), shadow and wind impacts (truly concerning shadow mapping in the Urban Design Brief from GSP), loss of privacy, pressure on existing services and amenities, change of neighbourhood character, decrease of property values, and further intrusion of high-rise development into low-rise areas. As the issue of urban density is not new it has been the subject of both debate but also research for decades and we urge City Council to seriously weigh the pros and cons of approving a development of this scale for both the community and those who occupy these units which can actually be isolating from daily urban life and the activity that takes place on the streets. To reiterate — I am not opposed to increased development in DTK and applaud some of the more appropriate mid -rise developments that exist, have been re -worked or have recently been completed like the Arrow Lofts and Barra on Page 343 of 520 Queen as just a couple of examples. There is absolutely room for more to enjoy what DTK has to offer but this proposed development, for the reasons outlined above, is not the way forward. My sincere thanks for your time and attention to this matter. With respect. Page 344 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 2:12 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development application 146-162 Victoria & 92-110 Park Good afternoon, I live in the Victoria Park neighborhood and I would like to register my concern with this development application. While I support the City's decision to intensify in the core, and the corner of Victoria & Park is obviously well-suited to residential towers, the scale of the project concerns me with 1,150 additional residential units and 38 stories Specifically, I worry about the additional vehicular traffic: * Many office workers are still working from home so the volume of traffic will increase as they head back to the office * The new residential towers that have been built are not yet occupied so we haven't yet experienced the increased traffic that they will bring (Charlie West, Station Park, The Otis, Ophelia, Mill St., new towers on Victoria St., etc.) The addition of bike lanes to downtown streets is already limiting the flow of traffic: one-way traffic on Joseph St; closure of Gaukel St. with a proposal to make that permanent; closure of David St. (although I believe this is temporary) * Eastbound traffic on Jubilee Drive is often backed up waiting for the light at Queen St. and Courtland, because of the short stretch between David St. and Queen St. It is not uncommon for traffic to be stopped by geese crossing Jubilee Drive In addition to the vehicular traffic I worry about the stress on Victoria Park itself. We are already seeing a dramatic increase in park usage these past 2 years due to COVID. Once all of these residential towers are occupied there will potentially be several thousand people using the park as it is the only green space nearby. Downtown Kitchener is a wonderful place to live and is getting better all the time. But it's a balancing act to keep the features that make it a wonderful place to live and still add density. I worry that as more and more people live here, and as older homes are torn down to make way for more residential towers, we will lose our heritage, which is the essence of what makes it a great place to live. Sincerely, Page 345 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:04 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park & Victoria Towers My name is and I have lived a for 45 years. The proposed height of the buildings is too high. They should not be higher than other buildings nearby. For inspiration, have a look around the universities to see the architect's work. We also need more colours other than grey and black. It is very difficult to exit or enter my driveway at any time, not just rush hours. I have seen ambulances held up in heavy traffic trying to get to the hospital. I can't enjoy sitting on my porch because of the noise and dirt from the traffic. With all the traffic it is difficult crossing the street to get to Victoria Park. (Maybe another crosswalk is needed) I have no computer so my neighbour is helping me express my concerns. Thank you for hearing my concerns. Page 346 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:08 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St S, 92-110 Park St Hello Eric. Our questions and concerns re: the above proposed development: 1. There is no green space visible from the street. Anything planned for the rooftop is not green space. Victoria Park is already overcrowded. 2. There will be increased traffic on Park St. which was not designed for the current traffic. We have lived on Park St for 40 years, and have witnessed the gradual increase in traffic, especially since the opening of the LRT. We cannot use our balcony at the front of the house, due to the noise level and dust. 3. According to the Planning Justification Report, there will be 50 so called "affordable housing"units, all small one bedrooms at a cost of $368,000. This report was written in 2020.What will the cost be by the time these units are move in ready? When is this city going to do anything about affordable housing for families? Please put us on the mailing list for any further information, notice of future meetings etc. i tia ,k you, Page 347 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:33 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria Street Development Mr.Schneider, Ms.Chapman, and Mr.Muir, I am writing you today regarding the application for development at the corner of Victoria Street & Park Street. As a 15 year resident on Cherry Street, I can say that hearing of this development truly shocked me. The thought that the city would even consider allowing this development to go ahead simply doesn't make sense for this community. The other large condo buildings that have already been allowed on Victoria Street, have increased traffic and caused construction chaos. This development, which I am to understand would be the largest yet would not just change the face of our established residential neighbourhood but also change the landscape of Kitchener's most beautiful area, Victoria Park. I cannot begin to imagine walking out my front door and having 38 stories, 3 towers staring down at me as a view! Sunlight would be blocked, traffic on Cherry Street has already increased since the first condos went up so I cannot imagine the nightmare this development would create. In speaking of traffic... where are the 483 cars that are not provided by the development going to park?? 1150 Residental Units vs. 667 Parking Spots. I implore the city to decline this development! Debbie this is your community, your view will be the same as ours! These are our homes, our green spaces, a community that has thrived for over 70 years, please don't turn us into a mini Toronto. Sincerely, Sent from my Galaxy Page 348 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:33 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; Mayor Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street - Development Application Attachments: Response to the Park -Victoria Development.pdf Hi Eric, Attached are my comments on the proposed development at the corner of Park & Victoria Streets. Page 349 of 520 Response to the Park -Victoria Development I oppose this development because it is contrary for the Official Plan for Kitchener. The Kitchener Official Plan was created over several years of discussions and consultations, and carefully crafted to balance the need for intensification in the inner core to protect our valuable farmlands and our water table, and the need to protect our established downtown residential neighbourhoods and the character of our city. It was decided at that time to restrict the high-density developments to certain streets only, or portions thereof. It was also decided that it was necessary to include transition zones between the high-density areas and the lower -density areas, so as not to devalue and destroy the people's right and ability to enjoy their own properties. The area in discussion was deliberately designated a transition zone and limited to low to medium density development. This was not an oversight or an accident of planning. The proposed development goes completely against the vision and reasoning for the existence of this zone. Having read the justification report by the developer, I found no convincing reason to abandon the Official Plan and its accompanying zoning. By its own surveys, the City has already met its intensification targets for 2030 with the projects already built or in progress, so the need for more intensification is not relevant. It is true that there is a lack of affordable housing in the City at this time, but none of the units proposed in this project would help in this matter. The developer deems units at 80% of market value for their proposed development to be affordable. Traditionally, affordable housing meant no more than 1/3 your monthly income for rent, or no more than 3 to 4 times the median yearly income for buying a home/condo. The current median income for Kitchener Centre is $47,129, which would put the proposed units way above affordable. Plus the majority of the units in the proposal are only for 1,2 or 3 people at the most per unit, making them not suitable for the majority of families. Canada needs families with at least 2 children to even come close to a stable population. This development would actually deepen the affordability problem in the area as it is destroying 5 homes and one low-rise apartment building which houses 11 people on disability pensions or with low incomes. None of these people would be able to afford even a one -bedroom unit in the proposal. Add to this the fact that none of the so-called "affordable" units have means to keep them at that price. They could very easily be all bought up by an investor and re -sold at the market rate. The developer may argue that they can't make a profit making truly affordable units or larger units, but this is not believable as other developers are building new homes all around in our neighbourhood. They are not losing money, or they would not be doing it. A far more suitable development for this location would be stacked townhouses, like the ones on Gage Avenue or the lovely mixed-use development at 150 Caroline Street in Waterloo. These developments did not lose their developers money. Such developments would fit the Official Plan and the Zoning for this proposed area. They also did not create parking and traffic nightmares for the surrounding area. Page 350 of 520 I would regard it as a betrayal of the purpose of the Planning Department of the City of Kitchener and of the citizens of this city, to allow this proposal to go forward. To break our Official Plan and our Zoning By-laws, just to enrich a private developer, would destroy all credibility for the City in the eyes of the people. It would also set a very dangerous precedent, and all other developers would demand similar concessions. This developer has already lied to the people who live in the buildings that they want to raze. They have told them that there is no purpose in protesting, as it is already a "done deal". So, either the developer is lying to the people or the Planning Department is lying to us when asking for our comments and objections. Some people have said to me that I can only mention planning issues in these comments and nothing b1se. I reply to them, that the whole purpose of public consultation is to hear about pertinent issues that developers and planners may not have considered because they are working in silos, and may not see the bigger picture about how this development affects other areas of concern for our city, country and planet. First, a foreword as to what comes next. I am a retired church minister, and now in my retirement, I work as a volunteer with our local Neighbourhood Association trying to build community, connections, inclusion, and neighbourhood spirit. I do this, to give back and to do my part to make this a livable city. This gives me a difference perspective than some people, a different way of speaking, and perhaps a different vision. I tend to express myself in story & narrative form and to see things in the long perspective. A story of a city called Kitchener I wasn't born here. I didn't grow up here. I have lived all over Canada, in urban areas and rural areas, in the north and in the south. I have worked with the poor and the rich, the included and the excluded, the native born and the immigrant, the broken and the healthy, the indigenous and the settler. I think this helps me to see the history of Kitchener in a special way. I moved here in 1992, and have learned about the history and life of this city through the eyes and words of its residents and from people in the rest of Canada. When I told people that I was moving to Kitchener, I was told some interesting tidbits: - The population of Kitchener has always had more men than women, so it is a great place for a single woman to find a good husband. They have a great Oktoberfest festival with good food, good music, and great beer. - The German culture is really big and alive here. People still speak German on the streets - They have a fabulous Farmer's Market; and Page 351 of 520 It is a city that still feels like a town, were among some of the comments When I moved here, I observed that these comments were true. In fact, I did meet my husband, get married, and settle down here. Kitchener did still retain the town feel of family and neighbourhoods. It was an industrial town, that worked hard and valued family and friends. It was a religious town. It had more churches per capita than any place I have every lived. It was still close physically, mentally and emotionally to the farmland that surrounds it. Most of the residents grew up on farms, or their parents or grandparents did. Which probably explains their ethic of hard work. They were a working-class town and proud of it. The culture and identities of Kitchener and Waterloo were quite distinct. But life has changed very dramatically over the last 30 years, not just for Kitchener, but for all of Canada, even all of North America. The rise in the power and influence of Corporate America (this includes Bay Street along with Wall Street) changed all our worlds. Corporations, by the very rules of their existence, place more value on money and power, than on people and the planet. At first, the insidious evil of this premise was concealed under a veneer of civility. Remember that evil is defined in faith life, as placing the value of things (power, money, fame, etc.) & self, above the value of God, people, and creation. Under the guise of "Good Business Practice", almost all our industries were out- sourced, moved out of Canada to other countries, where things can be made cheaper, with fewer rules regarding fair & safe labour practices or the environment. After all, "The lowest price is the rule of the land". This practice gutted the heart and soul of cities and towns like Kitchener. Empty and abandoned buildings & properties filled city centres across North America, and Kitchener was not immune. Leadership in our city floundered for years. Much of North America sunk into despair, frustration and anger. Note the rise in mental illness and addictions, with its accompanying death rate, as well as the rise of poverty, homelessness and helplessness. Some political leaders even tried to use this anger to their personal advantage. But money, profit, and development are not intrinsically evil. They only become such when they are prioritized over people. Non-profit corporations, renounce the profit motive in their terms of existence, and seek to serve people and their needs. Democratic governments by their definition — of the people, by the people, for the people — should intrinsically be good, if their leadership is not co-opted by other forces. have hope for Kitchener, for Canada, for our world. I believe that Kitchener has come through this despair and is on the road to a bright future, if we are careful not to lose our way again. Page 352 of 520 How did Kitchener find its way out of this mess? I believe it was through our farmers and our indigenous people. Both these peoples know hard times and a multitude of setbacks, of being looked down upon, overlooked and undervalued, yet they continue. What gives them their strength? What feeds their souls & hearts? They have never lost touch with the importance of the land, and the importance of people. Without people and without land, we lose our way. Neither culture believes in the perpetual growth myth that "Corporate Culture" touts. They believe in the sustainable economy. They know that resources are finite, and that the sustainable world balances the needs of all — all types of people and all life on our planet. We are all inter -connected. If we do not defend all, all will suffer. One of our greatest resources is the creativity of the human mind and determination of the human soul. Kitchener started to look beyond our city limits. Being amalgamated into a regional government did not hurt, but helped. We started to look at what can we learn from our rural townships and what we can learn from our sister cities of Waterloo and Cambridge. Our zeal for defending our rural lands grew, and with it a determination to stop urban sprawl. We did not want to become just like Toronto (the figurative heart of corporate culture). I believe it was this renewed understanding of our interconnectedness, that helped to pilot our Official Plan. It is also why I do not want corporations from Toronto telling us how we should develop our City. I want our City to tell corporations what type of development that we want here. We want development that serves us and our needs. Corporate greed is not a new thing. It has been with us a long time. But when we care about each other and work together, much good can be accomplished — like the co-op movement, credit unions, work unions, civil rights movement, and the environment movement. Let's keep Kitchener positive. Let's keep Kitchener for all the people, not just the wealthy. Page 353 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:58 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning By -Law Amendment Re Victoria Park South Attachments: Park Victoria.pdf Hi Eric as a resident of Heins avenue in Victoria Park I am submitting the attached comments in regards to the proposed development at the corner of Victoria South and Park Street. This email is confidential. If you received it in error, notify the sender by reply email, then permanently delete it and make no copies Unsuscribe Page 354 of 520 December, 5th, 2021 City of Kitchener Eric Schneider, Senior Planner Eric I am submitting the following comments to be considered for the property describe as 92-110 Park Street and 146-162 Victoria Street South. I am opposed to the proposal to rezone the block from MU -1 & MU -2 to MIX -3 Zone. 1. The current zone for this property MU1 and MU2 was, researched, wisely planned for, a public process and implemented to meet City's unique vision of the future for downtown Kitchener. I do not see a need to change that now on this corner. Particularly when there is opportunity for many other developments on sites in the immediate and surrounding area that will have less negative impact on nearby neighbourhoods. 2. The Bramm yards is an excellent example of future development opportunities for increased density and height with minimal negative impact on surrounding neighbourhoods. 3. The scale and intensity need not be three buildings, 25 storeys, 36 storeys and 38 storeys to better utilise the infrastructure and facilities in the downtown core. The intensity need not to be 1150 units to optimize the use of the land and to contribute to transit and housing objectives and policies. 4. 1 am very concerned about the negative effects such as wind and shadowing will have on the immediate neighbourhood, Victoria Park a Heritage District Neighbourhood. Traffic: the residents of Victoria Park if coming home anywhere from north on Victoria St. have lost access to Joseph and Water Street to one way traffic resulting in travelling 4 more blocks to Park St or 5 blocks to Queen Street. Victoria South is already a bottleneck and travelling south on Queen through the core is not any better. Sincerely, Page 355 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 7:55 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: debbie.chaoman@kitchener.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria Towers Hi, Regarding the proposed zoning change and building for the Park and Victoria intersection. I live about from this proposed location and as a citizen and homeowner, Here are my questions and comments, in no particular order. It's too tall! I'm all for development and know we have a strategy for intensification in the core, but it abuts low-rise heritage... I'm glad there much bike parking. Has there been a traffic study done? That many more cars in an already busy area concerns me for congestion and safety with my kids being on the sidewalk on Park St. Will the streets be widened to accommodate, especially considering all the recent construction imminently nearby? How long would it take for construction? King to Park along Victoria has already been slow for traffic due to construction of nearby buildings. Where will the shadow from the building reach? I believe it'll cast shade on my house, in a low rise heritage neighborhood... What will the ground floor have? I'd like some retail or restaurant space. At least something for the public. Ideally however not something with nightlife that attracts loud crowds late at night. Will there be some affordable housing units? Will there be greenspace? Will the parking be visible from the street? Exactly Which existing buildings would be demolished for this? Overall, it seems too tall for what I'd like which would cast shadows over my property and make it less private with new residents peering down into my yard, and I'm concerned about traffic flow. These aren't good for the border of my heritage neighborhood. Please lower the height considerably. Thank you, Page 356 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 8:12 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; Dr Lisa Simpson McQuarrie Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park proposed development Hello Eric Schneider, I appreciate your work in planning and making our city the best that it can be while preserving our personality and heritage. Understanding that it must be a bit of a moving target given our rapid growth. I appreciate your time to fully review the following thoughts and substantial concerns about proposed the development 146-162 Victoria St S and 92-110 Park St. As a lifetime resident, business owner and parent I really concerned for this community and my neighbouring businesses, families and households. I believe that Councillor Chapman has passed along some initial thoughts (I really appreciate that consideration and effort) — however there have been several more thoughts/concerns that have come to light after the community information meeting that was held this past week. Traffic • It was pointed out that the majority of the traffic study was conducted during the COVID lockdown (supported by the proposal document), obviously swaying the results and not giving a proper or remotely accurate assessment of the current traffic volumes. It is clear that the traffic study needs to be conducted again at bare minimum. • I would love to gain a clear understanding on how the region/city is establishing the overall traffic impact of the buildings that are currently being constructed and not yet occupied, and the buildings that are proposed. • Found it concerning that there wasn't study conducted on the neighbouring streets or anything reflecting the impact of traffic on those streets Parking/traffic impact • .5 parking spaces for each unit? another proposed amendment that seems short sighted. • Making the assumption that people will only work from home or want to take indirect public transit (21 minute trip) to get basic groceries is optimistic. Google is building an office building at Moore and Breithaupt st. just to have people work from home? FSR • During the meeting this past week I gained a basic understanding FRS rating — however given the proposed FSR rating of 11.6 is close to 6 times what the property is currently zoned for is frankly alarming. I personally understand and appreciate the need for more residential density in the downtown core. However there seems to be some glaring discrepancies between the City of Kitchener Official Plan; Region of Waterloo Official Plan; 2019 Growth Plan; 2020 Provincial Policy Statement; and Planning Act and the Planning Justification Report (PJR) for this proposed development submitted by the Applicant (Kevin Muir, GSP Group). Although in Mr Muir"s opinion, this development "ticks all the boxes" we fail to see how this development "respect[s] the existing scale, height, building length and massing of the neighbourhood" (from City of Kitchener Design for Page 357 of 520 Residential Infill In Central Neighbourhoods, Urban Design Manual). We realize that the site technically falls into a "Mixed -Use Zoning" but the application is seeking exemptions from several zoning compliance regulations which would actually be appropriate for a site that is directly next to low-rise residential communities along Park St., Theresa St., and Victoria St. For instance: MAX building height of 32M (applicant proposing 82.8m, 115.25m, and 121.75m); MAX number of storeys of 10 storeys (applicant proposing 25, 36 and 38 storeys — above podium!). These heights rival the tallest buildings in the region (DTK Condos at 39 storeys and Charlie West at 31 storeys) which are also arguably too tall but at least do not directly abut low-rise residential neighbourhoods. These proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park— 20-32 storeys higher. As referenced in the PJR, the Kitchener Official Plan Section 11.C.1.31 intends that new buildings are designed and existing buildings are reworked to "enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places" as well as Section 4.C.1.9 which directs that residential intensification and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is to be designed to respect existing character with a "high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context" — we argue that these proposed towers fail to appropriately acknowledge the surrounding context in an insatiable desire for increased floor space and thus profit. The scale, massing, and transition are completely inappropriate for this location and we fail to see how "the proposed building height and scale can be achieved without creating unacceptable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood resulting from the taller building form" (PJR, p.42). With a development of this scale of course we are concerned by a variety of factors such as increased vehicular traffic (poorly accounted for in the PJR and an issue we currently struggle with on Theresa St. in terms of speeding and wrong - way traffic), shadow and wind impacts (truly concerning shadow mapping in the Urban Design Brief from GSP), loss of privacy, pressure on existing services and amenities, change of neighbourhood character, decrease of property values, and further intrusion of high-rise development into low-rise areas. As the issue of urban density is not new it has been the subject of both debate but also research for decades and we urge City Council to seriously weigh the pros and cons of approving a development of this scale for both the community and those who occupy these units which can actually be isolating from daily urban life and the activity that takes place on the streets. In my opinion there seems to be many assumptions made in the PJR — the biggest one being the impact on already high traffic congestion. Nowhere in the report does it take into account of the traffic generated by the other towers in existence but are not yet occupied. And to make the assumption that people aren't going to have vehicles and walk or take public transit — is again in my opinion a stretch. Something as simple as basic groceries not accessible by foot and to think that the market that this building will attract (based on the surplus of one bedroom units it is safe to assume young professionals) will take indirect public transit to it? possible? perhaps, Likely? I think that is optimistic, I urge you to come stand on that street corner at pretty much any time of the day and get an understanding of the volume that exists now (if you haven't done so already) and think about what it will be with an increased density (between the 3 proposed towers and the 3 existing) of 3000+ people (conservatively) Again, I am not opposed to growth or increased density — but it needs to be done responsibly at a pace that is manageable — and frankly put — in accordance to the plan put together by the city of Kitchener. Really would appreciate hearing that you have received this. I truly appreciate your time and look forward to your response Page 358 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, LUL I o:4/ rNl To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park Towers Hello, I have several concerns regarding the planning application for the proposed towers to be built at Victoria and Park. My concerns are as follows: -Traffic: it is already nearly impossible to get out of my driveway, sometimes taking 10 minutes just to back out due to traffic on Park st. In addition driving to and from my daughters daycare can take anywhere from 10-20 minutes driving down Victoria due to traffic, that may not seem like a big deal however when you also have a 10 month old who is screaming in the back seat that extra 10 minutes can seem like an hour. There will be disruption not only while the building is constructed (as exemplified by the towers being constructed on Victoria st) but ongoing increased traffic in the area due to increased number of residents living in a smaller square footage. -Exposure to dust, debris and pollution during construction and from an increase in number of vehicles in the area: I am very concerned about my young children being exposed to increase levels of dust and pollution as this building is being built. There are countless studies regarding exposure to dust and pollution can negatively impact a child's health and development. (More than 90% of the world's children breathe toxic air every day (who.int)). Types of Construction Pollution - Toronto Environmental Alliance. Health Impacts of Air Pollution in Canada 2021 Report - Canada.ca -Character: This building will be a detriment to the character of the area/ This is a residential area with many century homes that are beautiful to look at. This building will take away from that. -Shade: This building will cast a significant shadow on our home. Our children will be unable to play in sunlight past 5pm during parts of the year. The lack of sunlight will also affect plant growth. -Noise: We will be exposed to noise pollution due to construction which can affect hearing long term. -Damage to our property: Dust from construction will cover our home, our home still has original lathe and plaster walls and the vibrations from construction will cause our walls to crack, requiring repairs that will come out of our pocket. -Privacy: People in the building will have a direct line of sight into our side windows resulting in little privacy for us. I hope you will reconsider the height and placement of buildings for the benefit of residents who have spent their hard earned money purchasing a home in a RESIDENTIAL area. I am very concerned about the area that I had been looking forward to raising my children in. Thank you for vour time Page 359 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 10:21 PM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and park towers development proposal Good evening, I'm writing regarding the proposed development at Victoria and Park St by the GSP Group. I have witnessed and welcomed much change since l moved to this nelghbouncciod 13 years ago. It has been encouraging to see new life brought into abandoned buildings and to see an increase in investment to kitcheners downtown core. I however have been disappointed to see our beautiful, historical Victoria Park continue to see an increase in drive thru traff[c with rare adherence to speed limits. This traffic increased when the loN was being built (never relurmmig to normal levels after it was done) and jumping up yet again with the last 2 years' development of the 100 Hundred towers on Victoria St and the reduced lanes or sometimes outright road closures. The proposed towers by GSP group would put even more car traffic on this collision prone corner as well as through the park. I also find the proposed height obnoxiously tall when compared to its surroundings - whether that be the homes who will now have the towers in their sight or even compared to its neighbouring towers on Victoria St. I would like to see the towers be no taller that what has already jumped up on Victoria St given its residential neighbours - whom I think the city would like to keep as it adds to the charm of the neighbourhood and park setting. I personally would seriously consider leaving this neighborhood if I had a 30+ floor tower peering into my backyard. Therefore I strongly propose that the development application be amended. Page 360 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December b, LU?- I IZ:U4 HIVI To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria St and Park St development Attachments: City of Kit Itr re local develop ment_Dec21.docx Please find attached my input regarding the proposed development. Thank you. Page 361 of 520 I live at' very close to the proposed development at Victoria St. and Park St. I was absolutely stunned and dismayed to learn that a development of staggering magnitude might soon be wedged in along the same short, crowded stretch of Victoria St. S. as the several other recently constructed high-density, multi-storey buildings. Many concerns came to mind: Can the infrastructure, particularly the sewers, accommodate such a large increase in usage? With even the finest of ventilation systems, is a structure of that size and design healthful, especially given the recent surge in respiratory illness? Where could a child who lived in that building play outside or learn to ride a bike? Is Victoria St. becoming a tunnel? How could the fire department handle an emergency in a 38 -storey building? Will the current car insurance surcharge I have to pay as a result of living within this postal code area increase significantly with thousands more residents moving into the area? The issue that would affect me most directly is the impact the proposed project would have on traffic. Perhaps some people living in towering apartment/condo complexes may not use a car regularly, or at all, but in the absence of a car, particularly if they work from home, many will be heavily reliant on other vehicles (i.e., couriers, service vehicles, taxis, fast food and grocery deliverers, etc.) to come to them, so commercial traffic will increase. Kitchener is already rapidly becoming very difficult to traverse with more and more traffic lanes being sacrificed for light-rail tracks, bike lanes and centre -turn lanes, one-way streets, dead-end streets, and pedestrian -only routes. I'm all for sharing the road but many of the changes seem poorly designed and some seem unnecessary. (For instance, the Krug St. bike lanes and parking lanes work well and don't impede anyone. On the other hand, the Queen St. bike lanes and centre -turning lane cause buses and couriers to block traffic, make the route around St. Mary's Hospital more complicated, and make the entry to The Laurentian building more dangerous while there is seemingly very low usage of the centre lane and bike lanes. When Queen St. had two lanes in each direction, traffic could easily and safely flow around buses, cyclists, and vehicles turning left. It's also hard to imagine that two-way traffic on reasonably quiet Joseph St. was not conducive to bike riding. Now, with a single one-way lane on the left side of the road and an inordinately high curb penning cars in, Joseph St. travel must be very challenging for large vehicles like ambulances, fire trucks, moving vans, and cars with trailers.) Vehicular traffic on Victoria St. S. between King St. and Strange/West St. already has many strikes against it, due to the negative effects of the following: ■ the Ion track on King St., which necessitated prohibition of left turns (except for buses) from Victoria St. onto King St. in both directions ■ the 1 Victoria St. S. condo tower parking garage driveway situated just a couple car lengths from both the King St. intersection and the Charles St. intersection, which leads to dangerous traffic stoppages caused by cars turning left into the building and results in other cars being unable to advance through a green light or being able to advance but then becoming temporarily stranded in an intersection or on the Ion track at either intersection ■ the Ion track crossing diagonally through the Charles St. intersection, which necessitated four-way red lights and prohibition of right turns on red lights when trains cross Page 362 of 520 ■ the lack of a designated left -turn lane onto Charles St., which causes left -turning vehicles to routinely block southbound traffic on Victoria St. because the advance green light is insufficiently long ■ the dearth of exit routes from Victoria St.: • cars cannot turn onto Charles St. from either direction when the Ion is crossing • Joseph St. is a non -through street to the west and one-way street the wrong way to the east • Arthur PI., Bramm St., Oak St., and Michael St. are non -through streets • Theresa St. is one-way the wrong way • Park St. is barricaded during some events in Victoria Park the temporary but longstanding narrowing of southbound Victoria St. from one lane to two lanes to accommodate the Glove Box construction access needs, which causes a bottleneck. Presumably, construction of the proposed development will create a similar long-term bottleneck. ■ the Glove Box parking garage driveway/main entrance, which leads to significant traffic delays caused by cars turning left into the complex, as well as very poor egress for vehicles attempting to leave the complex (both of which will only worsen as the complex gains additional occupants) ■ the narrowing of Victoria St. from two lanes to one lane near Park St., which causes a bottleneck ■ the railway crossing on Victoria St. near Walnut St., which halts traffic when a train is crossing and which currently causes northbound vehicles to rapidly decelerate and/or veer into the oncoming lane to avoid tracks that are in a state of significant disrepair To demonstrate the effects of these obstructions, I timed my travel a few times recently: Monday November 15/21, southbound Victoria St., late afternoon • 4:08 pm, stopped at red light at King behind three cars, a bus turning left, and one more car. When light turned green, first three cars advanced; bus turned left without delay; fourth car advanced; my car advanced, barely fitting into the remaining space in the stationary line-up; two more cars followed mine and were stranded in the intersection while the Ion turned onto Charles. When clear, several cars turned left onto Charles and I had to stop at a red light at Charles. • 4:13 pm (five minutes after being at red light at King), as first car in line, finally crossed Charles on green light, only to immediately stop at red light at Joseph. • 4:15 pm, crossed Joseph along with several cars jockeying to merge from right lane due to construction blockage. Car immediately ahead of mine turned right into Glove Box driveway and, simultaneously, a U -Haul truck barreled out of the driveway (understandably taking advantage of the only break in traffic) to turn left onto Victoria. Fortunately, I did not T-bone the U -Haul or run down the Skip the Dishes delivery man who ran in front of my car from the opposite side of the road while my view was obscured by the U -Haul. . 4:18 pm, finally crossed Park St. on a green light. Summary -10 minutes to travel about half a kilometer with two near -misses. Thursday November 18/21, southbound Victoria St., mid-afternoon . 2:13 pm, 12th vehicle in line at red light at King. On green light, seven vehicles advanced before light turned red again. On second green light, my car squeezed in as last of five cars to advance. • 2:15 pm, crossed Charles • 2:18 pm, crossed Joseph Page 363 of 520 • 2:21 pm, crossed Park Summary — 8 minutes to travel half a kilometre, with no left -turning bus or Ion in the mix. Monday November 29/21, westbound Courtland/Jubilee/Park St., mid-afternoon Unable to cross Benton on green light due to long line of traffic stopped by red light at Queen. After advancing to David St., was only car in any direction able to proceed through intersection into park because traffic was backed up from red light at Queen all the way back to Boathouse, and David St. traffic was blocked by construction barrier. Immediately after exiting the park, had to stop on Park St. since commercial vehicle blocked the oncoming lane while making a delivery to a home and oncoming traffic did not yield right of way. In short, traffic on the downtown portion of Victoria St. is clearly problematic much of the time and has become much worse consequent to recent developments. The introduction of a huge new residential building to the area will surely compound the problem and perhaps discourage current residents (myself included) from living in and/or frequenting the downtown area. I don't see this type of massive development as a plus for my neighbourhood or any other in Kitchener. Everywhere you look, there are cranes and towers looming. Single-family homes in established neighbourhoods are being segmented into rental units. Many in my early retired/ newly retired/soon-to- be-retired circle are planning to move to smaller, quieter locales with pleasant, easily accessible outdoor spaces, shopping, and restaurants because Kitchener now feels too crowded and inaccessible. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my thoughts. I trust that this requested input from me and others in the neighbourhood will be given full consideration. Sincerely, Page 364 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 10:00 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on the development of 146-162 Victoria St. S & 92 - 110 Parks St. Good Morning I would like to start my comments with words GPS uses to describe their work ethics, how they plan a development and how they see themselves as a company. GPS - What We Do Planning Responsible planning understands and "respects" the relationship between People, buildings ands aces. I don't see how this new development project that GPS is planning, actually takes any consideration, understanding or respects the relationship of people, buildings and space in the area. The neighbourhood has been in a construction for the last 10 plus years, with trucks, traffic, dust, noise and the disruption of nature around us. I was always under the impression that Victoria Park was the jewel in the City of Kitchener. A place that hosted cultural celebrations, and family events put on by the city. dating back to when the city was known as Berlin (100 years ago) and now Kitchener. I've owned my home for more than 20 years and have lived through much of the development of the downtown core. This new GPS development is not the "downtown core." This lovely proposed GPS building would be better suited for King and Victoria, with the LRT right at the door step. Or develop toward the train station on all the available land. I've seem people almost get hat crossing the street due to the current level of traffic in the area . People ride their bicycle on the sidewalk because they don't feel safe on the road. This causes people on the sidewalk to have to dodge cyclists. The traffic races along Park street all hours of the day, and at peak hours it's bumper to bumper traffic. If you don't back into your driveway you don't get out in the morning to go to work. Ambulance race along the street because going down King street in any kind of emergency is a joke. Where is a car to pull over.? Onto the LRT track? I truly question the planning of these streets. And now you want to disrupt the area with this monster of a building that will be looking into the back yards of the houses now on the street. Residents will have no privacy when it's completed, and in addition will have three to four years of noise, and dust and trucks during the construction. I just can't believe the city you would allow this to happen in a residential neighborhood. I had heard that there were townhouses proposed at the corner by Victoria Park and I thought that would be nice fit with the neighborhood. The new proposal does not fit in the neighbourhood. It's time to build on the other side of King and give us a break. Or at the very least lower the height of this building to better fit to 10 to 15 story. Please. Thank you Page 365 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 12:54 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Development - Victoria/Park Streets Attachments: 211206 Letter to Developer & City - Final.docx Hello Eric, Please find attached a letter from the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association's Development Subcommittee, concerning the proposed development at the corner of Victoria and Park Streets. I am copying this letter to our Ward 9 Councillor, Debbie Chapman, and to the Developer's Applicant, Kevin Muir. We would like to be kept informed of any opportunities to participate in consultation and planning of this development. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Page 366 of 520 December 6, 2021 Eric Schneider Senior Planner City of Kitchener PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Schneider, I am writing on behalf of the Development Subcommittee of the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association (VPNA) in response to the proposed development at the corner of Victoria and Park. Although this development is located in the Cherry Park Neighbourhood, many Victoria Park residents are within the 125 meter radius, and both neighbourhoods will be affected, as will others living and working in the downtown area. At a recent Residents' Information Meeting, Jointly organized by Cherry Park and Victoria Park Neighbourhoods, we heard many residents express concerns about the potential impact of this new development on the downtown community. Concerns included the need for affordable units and units built for families, the height, and the need for increased amenities to meet the needs of the growing downtown population, especially the need for more green space. We would like to stress that most residents welcome and understand the need for, and benefits of, urban intensification. We prefer to see our surrounding farmland and wildlife habitats preserved, rather than disappear under urban sprawl. What we need is a more diverse approach to intensification, and a healthy mix of housing options that will continue to accommodate people from a different range of backgrounds, incomes, and family compositions, The VPNA's Development Subcommittee has four priorities: affordable housing, green space, building with climate change in mind, and community engagement in the development process. To that end, we would like to recommend that the Victoria/Park development include, 1. At least the same number of affordable units as the number of households that are being displaced by this development, with affordability defined as inhabitants making a fulltime income based on minimum wage; 2. A specific number (to be determined) of two and three-bedroom units; 3. Designated lands or cash -in -lieu to increase downtown parkland, based on the City of Kitchener's optimum of 15 meters/person; (This is particularly important, given that the City's current standard is 15 meters/person, while their recent Places and Spaces Report dated August 18 2021 notes that green space in the Victoria Park area is less than 1 square meter per resident.) 4. Building materials and standards based on environmental sustainability; Page 367 of 520 5. A Citizens' Engagement Committee composed of residents from affected neighbourhoods, including Victoria Park, the developers' representatives, and City Planners to ensure ongoing consultation and communication throughout the development process. We are committed to a positive and collaborative approach to development Tn our neighbourhood. We want to work with developers, city staff, and other neighbourhoods to continue to make our City a healthy, vibrant, and inclusive place to live. We are pleased that the developer has reached out to the VPNA, asking for an opportunity to meet to discuss their proposal. We would like to be informed of all opportunities to contribute to this development process. Thank you for your consideration of our input; we look forward to hearing you. Sincerely yours, c4r- Councillor Debbie Chapman, City ofkitchenert Debbie.chapman@kitchener.ca Kevin Muir, GSP Group, (Applicant), kmuir@Qspgroup.ca . . Commented [PSI]: Page 368 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 1:24 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street - Development Application Hello Mr. Schneider, Councillor Chapman I am writing to express my objections to the proposed development at the corner of Park and Victoria. I have several concerns with the proposal, many of which I know are shared by my neighbors: • Deviation from the official plan and zoning that identify this location as a transition between the higher density urban growth center and low rise residential. • The lack of appropriate transition from the same. These would be the tallest buildings yet in this area, where they should be shorter than the developments already constructed to the east. ■ The seemingly ridiculous increase in FSR. By comparison, I understand that providing a LI=EDcertified design would allow a bonus of 1 FSR. What does this project include that would warrant such a generous deviation from the intended FSR? • The layout of the site positioning higher towers nearest the streets to facilitate the future development of other lots. ■ The loss of mature trees, and lack of new greenery being possible with a 0 m setback. • The continued unchecked growth of the neighborhood population without a proportionate increase in public amenities such as green space. While I am not opposed to this location being redeveloped, it seems like what is being proposed does not align with existing plans or guidelines, Something that meets appropriate transition to adjacent neighborhood; and is more forward thinking in terms of environmental design (both in maintaining trees on the street and promoting the implementation of LEED or similar standards) would be welcome. Best regards, Page 369 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:04 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] re: Mixed -Use Redevelopment application at 92-110 Park Street & 146-162 Victoria Street South Dear Mr Schneider, Councillor Chapman, I am writing in response to the notice of Application for Development at the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street. Similar to many of our Victoria Park neighbours, I would like to express questions / concerns related to the proposed Mixed -Use Redevelopment application at 92-110 Park Street & 146-162 Victoria Street South. To start, I am trying to better understand what does the City of Kitchener consider to be a Mixed -Use development? Based on the supporting material submitted with the application, the subject site is currently designed as'Mixed Use' in the City's Official Plan and the applicant is looking to change the current zoning designation to a "High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MIX -3) in By-law 2019-051 with special regulations. However, the proposed Development - Zoning Compliance Summary Table (on page 29 of the Planning Justification Report) shows non-compliance with significant aspects of the MIX -3 ZONE designation - in particular as the development relates to the maximum number of storeys, maximum building height, maximum floor space ratio and minimum percent of non-residential gross floor area. The application requests an increase in height to 121.75m, 115.25m and 82.8m (from allowable 32m height), increase in maximum number of storeys to 38, 36 and 25 (from allowable 10 storeys) and increase in FSR to 11.53 (from allowable 2.0). In particular, the proposed non-residential GFA for the development is to be reduced from existing allowance of 20% minimum to proposed less than 2%. The site statistics included in drawinq A0.1 of the Architectural Site Plan Package package further underline this point - out of the total proposed GFA (101, 400 sm), only 1,750 sm is commercial (1.7%), while the majority is comprised of 82,150 sm residential (81.0%) and 17,500 sm above grade parking (21.3% ). This does not paint a very convincing picture of a mixed-use development, but rather of a very dense cluster of residential towers. Does the development replace / increase or decrease the amount of commercial area that is currently accommodated on the premises? Could the City / Applicant provide the public with a comparative building massing study of what is currently allowable, as per the City's Official Plan; what the proposed MiX-3 zoning would allow, and what the applicant is proposing with the Special Provisions it seeks to have applied to the site? A comparative illustration would demonstrate a lot more clearly what the level of compliance and fit of the proposed development is within the proposed zoning/ building context. Since one of the primary justifications offered in the application for this drastic increase in height and density at the corner of Victoria and Park is largely based on precedent projects - the proposed development being 'consistent with other approved applications and developments throughout the Kitchener Urban Growth Center in recent years" (as per Section 4.1 of the PJR, p.22) - it is highly concerning that the proposed development itself will likely set a new precedent and place undue pressure for high intensity redevelopment in the "Mixed Use" zone at the edges of the Downtown. This zone now serves as a transition area / a buffer between the highly intensified Downtown land use context and the stable residential fabric around it, in Page 370 of 520 particular, Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District to the south and Cherry Park Neighbourhood to the west. The supporting Studies included with this application, in particular - the Transportation Impact Assessment, Pedestrian Wind Study, and Shadow Impact Analysis Graphics included within the Urban Design Brief, also do not seem to address or respond to the cumulative, overall impact of the existing and probable future intensification projects in the Mixed Use area as well as the larger adjacent Downtown Innovation District immediately to the north and east of the development property. In particular, Section 2.4 of the PJR (page 7) states that the Bramm Yards lands, abating the Subject Site's northern property line at 55 Bramrn and currently owned by the City of Kitchener, "are intended for a higher infensity mixed -arse development with employment and residential components per the Urban Grovvth Centre (Innovation District) designefion that applies to the land. "Although there is no reference to an intended master plan for this site, based on its current zoning designation, the future Bramm Yards development will likely surpass the height and density that is requested for 92-110 Park Street & 146-162 Victoria Street South, if this were approved. Could the City / Applicant demonstrate how the proposed development application would fit within the anticipated developable context of the Bramm Yards Lands to the north, the already dense, recently built Garment Condos to the east, as well as other sites in the vicinity of the subject property that could accommodate denser developments / towers? What will the corner of Victoria and Park Street look like / how will it function when the proposed 38, 36 and 25 storey towers are placed not far from the Garment Condo towers (ranging from 28, 21 and 17 storeys) and the future Bramm Yards Lands towers? How many point towers can this urban block accommodate? What other sites within the surrounding Mixed Use zone could become assembled and intensified in a similar fashion if this application were approved? Could a more comprehensive Master Plan / Block Context Analysis be explored to capture ALL the known and probable intensification projects in this area, including potential ramifications and pressures the project might place on other sites in its vicinity? Having a clearer understanding of the overall, long term vision for Victoria and Park Street would help paint a more complete picture of how the proposed development will fit within the urban context of present and future projects. Thank you, Page 371 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:33 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter of Concern re: proposed development at Park & Victoria Attachments: letter of concern - park & victoria.docx Dear Sirs and Madam, Please find attached my letter of concern regarding the proposed development at Park and Victoria Streets in Kitchener. I look forward to your response. Thank you, Page 372 of 520 Monday December 6, 2021 Attention: City of Kitchener Eric Schneider, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x7843 Eric. Sch neider@Kitchener. ca Ward 9 City Councillor Debbie Chapman 519.741.2798 Debbie. chapman(a)kitchener.ca Applicant Kevin Muir, GSP Group 519.569.8883 Kmuir gspgrouV.Ca Dear Mr. Schneider, Ms. Campbell and Mr. Muir, My name is and I am contacting you regarding the new proposed development at the intersection of Park and Victoria Streets. I am proud to call downtown Kitchener my home; not only did I grow up here, but I have chosen to stay and raise my family here as well. When I heard through friends about the redevelopment plans for the parcel of land at Park and Victoria, I was completely taken aback by the scale of the proposed development. Although there are several existing towers near Victoria Park, these are generally not near low rise homes, or are much shorter where they are near low rise homes. The proposed Victoria and Park Towers are much taller than any existing tower near Victoria Park, 20-32 storeys higher! Several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South since 2016. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street toward low rise established neighbourhoods. • 1 Victoria — 19 storeys — completed in 2016 [1 ] • One Hundred Tower A — 21 storeys — completed in 2020 [1 ] • One Hundred Tower B — 17 storeys — completed in 2020 [1 ] • Garment St Condos — 28 storeys — complete in 2021 [1] The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably taller than any of the recently completed buildings along Victoria; the tallest tower would be equivalent to the two towers at the One Hundred stacked on top of each other! Currently the tallest tower in Region is DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys [1]. However, DTK Condos is located in the core of downtown, and is not located near low rise residential areas. And even so, I cannot understand why the City let that developer build so high. We have ended Page 373 of 520 up with a massive condo tower that is incongruent with the existing streetscape, and that dominates and obfuscates one's view from all directions. The Park and Victoria development would place two similarly tall towers within throwing distance of the Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods, and to our knowledge would be the largest development in the downtown to date. One would hope that in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to surrounding residential areas, new developments would be getting shorter as they approach low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. In addition to being very tall, the proposed development will be very close to the street and the towers will have little set -back from the edge of the podium. The impact on the streetscape would be very imposing and incongruous with the nearby land use, and so I strongly question the logic of the placement of such a large development where it is currently proposed. In my mind, a midrise (5-10 storeys) would be much more complementary to the existing nearby neighbourhoods; furthermore, a development 10 storeys or less would follow current zoning regulations. As a nearby resident I have several concerns: . Increased Motor Vehicle Traffic • Shadows • Community Vitality *Pedestrian and Cycling Landscape .,Overuse of Existing Nearby Amenities and Lack of Place Making Increased Motor Vehicle Traffic Located at the corner and Park and Victoria, this development will place more stress on an already heavily trafficked corner. I am concerned about how the new development will impact traffic patterns along Victoria Street and Park Street, through the park on Jubilee and throughout our neighbourhood. Shadows I am also very concerned about the impact these towers will have shadows over nearby homes. The design report shows large shadows are cast over nearby low-rise neighbourhoods for much of the year. These shadows will make the street darker and colder, which will make these streets less inviting and impact the residents that live there. Community Vitality While I agree in principle with the city's plan for greater density in the downtown core, I expect that like most things, when it comes to density more is not always better. It is understood that increasing the density beyond the existing condition at the site of the proposed development can surely contribute positively to the livability and vitality of the community within and surrounding the development. However, at some point further increases to the size of a development will start to have negative impacts that outweigh the initial benefits. The goal of increasing density in the core should be to create healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities, not simply more housing at any cost. Page 374 of 520 To that point, I am concerned about the quality of housing that this development will create. Like most of the other high-rise residential buildings that have been built recently, this development is offering mostly one -bedroom (two-thirds of inventory) and two-bedroom (one-third of inventory). In a one -bedroom apartment singles cannot comfortably share their space and costs with a roommate, and one -bedrooms apartments are not ideal options for families or even downsizing couples. If the goal is densification, then the quality of the units, not just the number of the units, should be considered. This type of construction will not alleviate the current housing crises in this City as it does not appeal to diverse households, and is not a viable alternative to detached and semi-detached homes. More units per building are more profitable for developers though, which unfortunately seems to be driving much decision-making as of late. We (residents of Kitchener) will be living with these towers for a very long time, long after the developers are gone. Therefore, short term goals such as fast densification and maximizing the profitability of developers should not be the leading concerns in considering such developments. Pedestrian and Cycling Landscape According to the design report there will be an entrance for parking off of both Park Street and Victoria Street, the development will only have car parking for approximately 60% of units and there will be bicycle parking. However, the design of the development is still strongly car centric. For example, there does not appear to be a separate or protected entrances for cyclists to access bicycle parking. Only confident able-bodied cyclists would be able to use such parking, riding along a parking garage with cars would discourage less able bodied or confident cyclists, and is certainly not appropriate for children. Such a large development should be inclusive to a wide demographic of people, including families. Additionally there appears to be little consideration for the experience of pedestrians in the building design, which is apparent in reviewing the wind impact study. Air flow around the building would create uncomfortable conditions around the building for any one not standing still right at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street both in the winter and the summer. This is notably the area where architectural renderings propose outdoor seating, and is where pedestrians would be required to wait in order to cross the road. Overuse of Existing Nearby Amenities and Lack of Place -Making Lastly, new developments are being built faster than the City is building new amenities for the new residents such as green spaces, trails, parks, squares, schools, and daycares. By concentrating so much development in one place without equal investment in communal space, we risk overuse of existing amenities. How will Victoria and Cherry Parks cope with an additional 1000+ residents at its doorstep? Will these parks be expanded and/or have further amenities added to compensate for increased use? Sales materials for new condos often list all the amenities that new residents can take advantage of, but these large developments should ideally be contributing to place making in our streetscapes, not just taking advantage of our existing places. The Bauer Lofts is a great example of a condo development that included placemaking in their design; we need more thoughtful design like the ground floor of the Bauer Lofts! The podium design of the proposed Page 375 of 520 development excludes non-residents of the towers from taking advantage of the shared outdoor space, and although there will be retail on the lower levels of the podium, available retail space in of itself does not result in place making. The lower levels of 1 Victoria and the One hundred towers are a testament to this. Summary In summary, I suggest that a midrise (5-10 storeys) would be much more complementary to the existing nearby neighbourhoods, as stated a midrise would also follow current zoning regulations. A smaller development would better integrate into the existing fabric of the surrounding neighbourhoods by placing less stress on the traffic in the area, including through Victoria Park and a smaller development would not cause large shadows over entire existing low rise heritage neighbourhoods. The goal of densification in the core of downtown Kitchener should be to create healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities, not to simply open the door for a deluge of high-end condo towers. At some point, further increasing density will start to have a negative impact that outweigh the initial benefits of a new development. While the number of new housing units is an important consideration in increasing density, the quality of those units should be an equally if not more important consideration. Units with two more bedrooms are more appealing than one -bedroom units to a larger more diverse set of households and are a better alternative to semi or fully detached homes. Furthermore, more people can comfortably live in a unit with more rooms, reasonably complexes with a greater proportion of units with two or more bedrooms could result in more densely occupied buildings than buildings with a greater proportion of one -bedroom units. With the exception of some proposed retail space on the ground level, the new development does not plan on contributing to the placemaking at street level. It would also make the pedestrian experience near the building less comfortable due to increased wind speeds, particularly at the corner of Park street and Victoria street where pedestrians would need to wait to cross the road and where architectural renderings suggest an area of outdoor seating. Finally if the City wants to densify the core, it also needs to create more common space for residents to gather; otherwise, there could be added stress on and overuse of existing amenities such as Victoria and Cherry Parks. My sincere thanks for your time and attention to this matter. With respect, Kitchener, ON [1] https:Hen.wikipedia.o[g/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipality Page 376 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:13 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Victoria & Park development Hi, Eric, Thank you for your availability to receive feedback on the proposed development at 92-110 Park and 146-162 Victoria. For the most part, this seems well aligned with the direction of appropriate land use given that the site is adjacent to the downtown core and within walking distance of the future passenger hub. Here are some of my initial thoughts on the project: - It looks like retail access at street level will keep the sidewalk relatively animated. Is there a way to ensure that this will be the case, such as mandating windows in those areas? I hope that further wind mitigation techniques can be used to keep the sidewalk environment pleasant and safe. My experience at other condominium sites indicates that parcel areas are often insufficient and difficult to retrofit well, so encouraging oversizing of that feature may be helpful. - Often, towers do not incorporate compost in their waste stream planning, and I hope this could be addressed. - Reduced motor vehicle parking provision seems appropriate for a transit oriented site. However, I'd like to see some EV charging capacity from the beginning, and latent capacity (at every parking space and in the power supply engineering) to provide universal charging availability in future. This has proven a near impossibility to retrofit in existing multi -unit buildings, for legal and technical reasons, and I expect this building will long outlive the widespread use of internal combustion engine vehicles. This prevents residents from seeking out and crowding charging sites in the community, which would be a serious inconvenience to them and their neighbours. - The bicycle parking provision seems very low. I would hope for something closer to two spaces per residential unit. As cycling expands in the city, I wouldn't want residents to find themselves discouraged to be a part of that shift. This can also lead to use of elevators and balconies for bicycle transport and storage. - As high density development expands along Victoria in both directions from King, and given the location of the transit/rail hub, I can imagine Victoria serving as a rapid transit corridor in future. Will the site plan accommodate future provision of BRT (and eventual LRT) station at Park? It seems to be a logical location. - I hope that this plan does not introduce any constraints on future use of the former Bramm Yards for civic and institutional uses. I can imagine that the health campus expansion, the addition of a downtown fire station, and future need for a major public venue (arena, convention centre, etc.) may be sited there eventually. I look forward to hearing more about the project and any public meetings. In general, I am happy to see Kitchener adding more residential development in a manner that brings in additional density to support transit and a vibrant downtown. All the best, Page 377 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:22 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at 146 Victoria Street Re: Victoria and Park Development Application at 146 Victoria Street South Dear Mr Schneider I apologize for writing such a long response to the development application. I am a resident of the Victoria Park area and have seen a number of highrise developments in the area. I have also had the opportunity to speak with many neighbours about the impact developments around the Victoria Park Heritage District. I have written to Tina Malone Wright, participated in secondary plan reviews and I have also spoken to Council about over -development in the Victoria Park area. I also understand the concern of people who think that we need to build up to save farmland and increase housing supply. Highrise developments have been increasing in height from about 20 storeys to those of 30 and 40 storeys. However, there are other options to building up and we need a vision for our city about how that should be done. Currently we are faced with application after application for very tall buildings that many people believe will preserve our farmland and solve the housing crisis. However, there are other ways to build density and we need better tools to accomplish that. So, while there is a need for housing so we do not pave over more agricultural land, these highrise developments overwhelm the people who live here. They are proposed one after another and we need to step back or they will literally overshadow us in number and size. They are too expensive for the people who need housing. Building more of these does not help but rather destroys the low rental areas. We need to house people densely, but that can be met with low rise builds in areas where there are now factories with huge, underutilized car lots. Many warehouses are single floor structures and there is a movement to build and re -build warehouses to multi storey buildings due to high costs of land. We have a great deal of under-utilized land in Kitchener with one storey warehouses and huge parking lots. We also allow building in ways that require cars rather than building where you can get transit or walk for your groceries and essentials. So, can we think about a more fundamental change? The alternative is to have developers decide that they want to build on a property. I can think of only a couple of applications in recent years where the city or the community asked for serious adjustments (242 Queen and Mill Street). Also, whereas previous builds have been in the 20 -storey range, we now have applications for 30- to 40- storeys. Is the only solution to build up higher and higher? Is this what we really want to happen? As I said, there are other options. What we need is to re -imagine our community and re -think how to create a community where living can be maintained on a human scale. Having said that, I have specific comments to make. Page 378 of 520 1. I'm in favour of a broader spread of medium density builds on areas that are non-residential such as old factories, which have large unused parking lots (see "5 Ways to Add Density Without Building High -Rises"). 2. It has been argued by Anthony Paletta that High Rises Are Not High Density. Planners staff have said in the past that high rise density in the core will actually save the low- rise neighbourhoods. 3. The city has been inundated with inappropriate housing. Three quarters of the proposal at 30 Francis are one -bedroom units. What about the missing middle? Affordability? There is a lack of variety in development proposals with almost no 2- or 3 -bedroom condo units that might house a family. This leads to a uniformity in income with little lifestyle variety. I have been told by planning staff that the city cannot address the type of units that are planned. A proposed rental building can later be changed to condos. 4. Do the demographics show that there is a need for one -bedroom units? The region undertook a study of demographic trends and found that there is less need for single detached builds. Fine. But one -bedroom units of 600sf may not meet the need either. The report also stated that 50% of the in - migrants are in the 15-24 age group (Region of Waterloo Long -Term Population and Housing Growth Analysis, December 2020). Will this age group buy one -bedroom condos? 5. Where will all these people go for recreation and natural landscapes? 6. What are the social consequences of living in high rises? There are studies that suggest that it is not good and can lead to urban anomie and social conflict (See Robin Mazumder). I could cite several academic studies which show how dense building will actually harm the social fabric. 7. What obligations does the city have for providing amenities for food, entertainment and the necessities of life? While the nearby hardware will serve some needs, the closest supermarket is 15 - to 20 -minute walk or transit ride. Transit is deemed an attractive part of this development, but will people use it? 8. If density targets are being met already, then why are we being pressured into building more inappropriate and high-cost housing? The city does not track whether condo units are owner - occupied and so are we just serving investors and our tax base? We really have no idea how many condos are owner -occupied since we do not keep track. A resident of Kaufman Lofts estimated that a quarter of the condos are not occupied by owners. 9. Covid also shows that as people work from home, they now realize that there is not enough space in their one -bedroom, 600 sf condos. I've been told that people work on their beds or in a corner of their bedrooms. The amenities and desire to avoid commuting that drew people to the centre are no longer a factor, so they move anywhere they can have a bigger space. 10. Will condos be only an investment? A recent report in Ontario shows that a quarter of all property purchases were from investors who are also buying houses and driving up the cost of housing. Do we need a municipal non -occupancy tax? Shortly after 30 Francis was being proposed an investment site popped up advertising units for $300,000. Are we building for need or investors? What about a non-resident tax? Is the amount of non-resident ownership being studied? 11. Finally, will low-income residents be displaced? Can we do something about it? I would like to offer that we cannot do so if we continue to allow few conditions on the rental units and prices. Can low- or even medium -income people afford these units? Clearly not and we do have a plan in place to increase affordable housing. Or do we? They do not meet the housing needs of our city: affordability and size of units, housing for the missing middle, displacing low-cost housing, all leading to gentrification. Page 379 of 520 You may think that I have many criticisms and few solutions. I am not an expert but I do live in the downtown area and I have been increasingly concerned about the way we are going. So, I can offer some suggestions that planning staff can work on. • We need to address what high rise development does to people. World famous Gehl Architects focus on how architecture connects people and puts health and well-being as the focus. A local expert which the City of Kitchener has consulted, Robin Mazumder could help develop planning with the ecology and mental well- being integrated into future developments. + How you can build attractive low rise high density and still meet targets and hold the line. The article "The Future of Social Housing: 7 Low -Rise, High -Density Developments shows how we can achieve density without building up. We can limit developments to the zoning that is set for the area. Zoning is not something that can just be put in place after years of planning and community input and then set aside. Zoning regulations are made to be followed. If nothing else, the plan needs to be altered to conform with the law as set out in 85-1 regulations as amended. I have observed over the past 5 years that many builds have been proposed and built around Victoria Park. These developers advertise "overlooking Victoria Park". The problem is that the people who use Victoria Park will find that they could have a tall building border rather than a tree border when the visit it. Even New York City has height limits around the long arms of Central Park (about 12 storeys). In 2019, the heights of buildings around Victoria Park did not rise above the trees. Now, we can see several developments which rise above the trees surrounding the Park. As far as I can tell, there will be about 10,000 new residents within a 10 -minute walk of Victoria Park. They will use this space because there is less than 1 square metre per resident right now in the areas around downtown Kitchener where these new residents will be living. So, stop building around the Park. a The proposal by Polocorp for a 12 -storey condo tower on Mill street was changed because it was not suitable for the neighbourhood. In that case, heritage was involved because it bordered on the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District and was next to a Part IV designated house. After many discussions with residents, the developer decided to build a complex of 1 and 2 bedroom stacked townhouses of 500 to 1300 sf. The proposal at Victoria and Park is inappropriate for the neighbourhood. A 40 -storey building at 30 Francis is very tall but there will be less impact on the low- rise neighbourhood around it. While heritage can be a low prineority in planning, the VPHCD is also Page 380 of 520 set out in a bylaw and the heritage provisions should be considered. The zoning on the West side of Joseph between Francis and Water has a lower height limit so there is less impact on the HCD across the street. Why is this not the case with the Victoria and Park development? The current zoning should be retained rather than allowing the requested FSR of 14.2. Current FSRs are less than 1.0 FSR (I calculated the property at 106 Park at .7 FSR. In other words, the proposed development is over 20 times as high! • So, can we develop high density at this lot with adequate protection for the`lowrise residential neighbourhood? Yes. If we do something different with the land. An example from the article by Cloe Logan "The hidden carbon footprint of highrises." We can do more and also reduce the carbon impact. In the development alternative (see photo) we can see that the streetscape is retained and the build is setback and is lower. The carbon retained by old buildings can never be recovered and by various means, new buildings can reduce the carbon deficit by as much a 40%. This development asks for zero setbacks on the East, West and South borders. Will there be any sidewalk left? Will it harm the social and visual fabric of the community? Yes. It is not up to me to re -design this development; it is up to the developer to come up with a plan that is acceptable to the neighbourhood and to the City of Kitchener. I hope that you will consider these comments. I am sure that members of the community are willing to meet with the city and developer and see what can be done to make it a better plan. Sincerely, cc: Debbie Chapman, Councillor Ward 9 Page 381 of 520 I am committed to reconciliation, and acknowledge that I live on the Haldimand Tract, promised to the Six Nations in 1784, land of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee. Page 382 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 7:17 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment Submission re Victoria Street and Park Street development Attachments: Comments o- re proposed project at Victoria and Park.pdf Sincerely, This communication, including attachments if any, is confidential. It is intended only for use by the addressee and contains information that may be protected by lawyer -client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this email or the information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message. Page 383 of 520 Dear Eric Schneider, Senior Planner for City of Kitchener I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development, a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid -rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. I am writing to voice my opposition to the project as it is currently planned The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener -Waterloo Region, DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos, though, it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline. According to the design report, the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street, as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood, As a resident of _ _. — I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property, along with the damage to the community. No-one can argue that this building is in keeping with the character of the area or any of the development plans of Kitchener or the Region. I am also concerned about the impact of traffic. As access to my street must be done either through Jubilee or driving north on the one way on Joseph. The issue I greatly fear is that as I use Park to access Jubilee, there will be considerable traffic problems presented by this project. As I understand it, the traffic study that was conducted was done during a time of COVID-19 when traffic was much lower than average. Further, I am increasingly seeing the issue of speeding and aggressive driving as people are using Jubilee and then increasingly using Heins as a cut through to get to King Street West. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park (see a summary below); however, these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes. The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself. Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. ■ 1 Victoria -- 19 storeys - completed in 2016 • One Hundred Tower A - 21 storeys -completed in 2020t,i One Hundred Tower B - 17 storeys - completed in 20201, Garment St Condos - 28 storeys complete in 202111 The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storevs, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Pi1rk Towers deyelnumen w.o ld be like h -i both the: towers at the One Hundred d=JoVnient stacked on top of each other! Page 384 of 520 Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: + Reducing the heights of the towers to a -mid -rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. • Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place I - 7 storeys 205 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place II - 9 storeys 3 241 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys 4) 243 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1- 6 storeys «� Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers - 15 storeys s 310 Queen Street South - Victoria Park Towers - 14 storeys m 290 Queen Street South - Victoria Place Retirement Community - 7 storeys 141 214 Queen Street South - the York - 6 storeys [41 South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen - 6 storeys 307 Queen Street South - Bread and Roses - 6 storeys 171 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers - 17 storeys w Page 385 of 520 Sources: 1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipa it I https://www.drewloholdings com/�artments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-i 3, https://www.drewloholdings com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually 5, https://www.drewloholdings com/apartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. https://www.breadandroses.coo ,/ 8. https://barracondos.com/about-barra/ Page 386 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 8:02 PM To: Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hello, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development, a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid -rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener -Waterloo Region, DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos, though, it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline. According to the design report, the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street, as well as within the Cherry Park neiahh-1-1-ood. As a resident of , am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property, which will be in the shadow of the tower. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street, which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street, through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park (see a summary below); however, these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes. The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself. Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. * 1 Victoria -1.9 storeys - completed in 2016 [1] • One Hundred Tower A - 21 storeys - completed in 2020 [1] i One Hundred Tower B - 17 storeys - completed in 2020 R] Garment St Condos - 28 storeys - complete in 2021 [ll The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storeys, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid -rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Page 387 of 520 Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place I - 7 storeys [2] 205 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place II - 9 storeys [3] 241 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys [4] 243 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1- 6 storeys [4] Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers - 15 storeys [5] 310 Queen Street South - Victoria Park Towers - 14 storeys [6] 290 Queen Street South - Victoria Place Retirement Community - 7 storeys [4] 214 Queen Street South - the York - 6 storeys [4] South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen - 6 storeys [8] 307 Queen Street South - Bread and Roses - 6 storeys [7] 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers - 17 storeys [1] Sources: 1. hs://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest huilding-s in the Waterloo Regional Municipality 2.. htt sem: Iw+ry w.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rentll ictoria-park-place-i 3. tts: Fw.drewloholdings.com/apartments-tier-rent/victoria- ark -lace -ii 4, Counted manually 5_ httWs:ZZwww.drewloholdings com/apartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. hl /.www.�irewloholdings.comfapartrnents-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. h s://www.breadandroses.coop 8. hap ;/,/barracondos.com/about-barra/ Sent from my Galaxy Page 388 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 10:27 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback: 146-162 Victoria St. / 92-110 Park St. Hi Eric, I am writing today to provide feedback on behalf of my household (Walnut St.) near the new Victoria & Park development proposal. In general, I am strong supporter of redeveloping these properties and appreciate what appears to be an overall high quality and ambitious proposal by the developer that makes efforts to integrate with a key intersection and corridor at the junction of the Innovation District and nearby neighbourhoods. I understand that a development of this intensity and in a location that is near (at least for now) low-rise homes is likely to receive substantial pushback, however I foremost want to express a pro -intensification position. This block and many of the - my view - wasteful surface parking lots in downtown are ripe of bring new residents to the core that can re- invigorate our mainstreet businesses and at times quiet and emptied downtown centre. On a positive impression of the proposal itself: - Quality visual appeal and architecture that looks achievable (at least, as rendered - sincerely wish more developments maintained their proposed appearance). - Appealing podium design, substantial balconies on the tower, a townhouse units. - High degree of engagement with sidewalks and the public realm at the corner, including a small plaza at the intersection. Ground floor commercial space (securing a small grocer or similar would be even better!). Directing parking garage traffic to the rear off Bramm St. Pavers and greenery incorporated into the central drop off area, as well as (proposed at least) greening on the 7th floor amenity level. Some improvements (at least rendered) to the pedestrian spaces. Replacing otherwise low engagement commercial and parking areas with an active and modern street wall. - Intensification within 600m of our transit and employment centre of the city, improving transit access and walkability for a large set of new residents. Areas that I would look to improve in the proposal: - Extremely tight setbacks on Victoria and Park; I am concerned that this immediately precludes, at the intersection especially, future space for AT or mass transit in the Victoria St. corridor. This street is already an unpleasant walk given the high traffic volumes and speeds and a limited sidewalk area will not make this better. - Driveways on both Park and Victoria. Not sure why the driveway is needed at Victoria, which will be a busy pedestrian area and near the intersection. I foresee, particularly exiting cars, blocking the sidewalk. Could this either be entry -only or closed to cars (i.e. bikes and ped access only)? Page 389 of 520 - Similarly, more bike parking would be a minor loss of vehicle parking in exchange for a substantially larger number of bike spots per unit. On a similar note though - I am supportive of maintaining low parking allocation per unit. If local residents are concerned about car volumes, let's keep them low and encourage residents to use alternative modes! - A lack of 3 -bedroom units, or at least 2+1 configurable units being noted and available for families, at least in the podium/townhouse levels. Perhaps this isn't the development for these, but I continue to ask where those developments will come from to reduce pressure on the SDH market in town. Its evident the 1-2 bed unit focus is an attraction to investment buyers. - As with Garment St / 100 Victoria, the lack of any substantial rear lot engagement leaves me wondering what the plan for Bramm St parking lot is and if this is the right way to build these facades, at least for the ones that are abutting this city land. The wind studies are a little concerning, especially for winter months at what may become a busy pedestrian corner. I would encourage asking for more from the developer that could reduce the wind impacts, especially at the corner where there will be substantial wait times for those out in the elements (may require input from the city and region on their ROW?). - More information on the use of low carbon footprint and high efficiencv materials appliances and HVAC would be welcome, as this wasn't really addressed in a substantial way. Stating LEED features without a certification is, frankly, a bit of a dodge. Would help to know what those are! On the topic of intensity and height: I am a proponent of building upwards more intensively if that means leaving more space for green area and parks, land for higher occupancy/family units in low to mid -rise buildings, and affordable/co-op housing. I don't find the idea of this building near downtown heritage neighbourhoods concerning as my view is those homes are the designated outliers. The city has zoned for transition around here and this a minor step outside the downtown zoning area. I'm certain this will be a major concern from local residents (particularly long term residents) and while the proposal was probably made planning to accommodate some adjustment for appeasement, I don't fundamentally think this criticism is consistent with their own living style. Many of these same residents are concerned with affordable housing while living at a peak of luxury in land value and access to amenities downtown in SDHs. I say build more at all levels of the housing market, however... Areas that 1 remain concerned about for the city / region: - The affordable housing accommodations in this building, while in line with some manner of local standard, are just not useful to solve the problem. I don't know why some proponents look to cash charges as a bad thing when the allocated units could easily be bought and flipped, achieving zero benefit to the community while still impacting the developer bottom line too. If they aren't to be rent -controlled, fixed units owned by the city or a non-profit I don't think they are even worth including when the developer should instead just put funds (substantially so) towards a city/regional/non- profit housing that truly helps the unhoused or lowest earners. Maybe an argument is these charges from other developments are too small, but that is another issue. - Above -zoning developments that are geared towards investor buyers are not helping our housing crisis in the region. As above, I'm not anti -development, but there is little being done to make these lucrative investment condos pay a price for that upside that benefits affordable housing or as development incentives to rental or low-rise, family oriented developments. Creative approaches to incentivize this kind of development are lacking but seem possible in the same way that the ION corridor was incentivized for intensification. What can be done at a municipal level? Page 390 of 520 - Many new developments along the Victoria St. corridor which, while in regional hands, leaves me concerned. These sidewalks are quite narrow, in poor condition, and next to busy and hard to engage traffic corridor. More needs to be done to make this a route that can service moving people to downtown and the transit hub. - Park space and urban greening remains a shortcoming of DTK, both by metrics of space per resident and a simple eye test. Meanwhile, we have huge swaths of parking space you could safely shoot a gun through after 5pm such as the Bramm St lot. I am eager to know more about what the city and region have planned for these areas and why we can't be actively engaging these new developments to mesh with that future land use and vision. Could we add more green space? Afford ourselves a bold, new pedestrian oriented urban neighbourhood in the city core near transit? It seems like we're missing an opportunity to be wholistic in design here! Thanks and apologies this got a little long (and for any planning illiteracy within). Excited for this development to add to our city, but do think we can still do better, to say nothing of major changes we still have to make to enable our city to be liveable for all. That latter problem being a bit bigger than any one development, though they are often the centre of focus. Page 391 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 4:21 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Victoria and Park St tower development Hello, I'm a resident who lives on near where 3 new towers are to be built. I just want to voice my support for this sort of development. I saw an article in The Record about "concerned residents". https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/12/OUmulti-tower-development-proposed-for-park-a nd- victoria-streets-in-kitchener.html As a resident of the area I want to voice my support for these developments. I think more density is what this area needs. We're so close to downtown, this space feels wasted on single family dwellings. Their petition, which I'm sure you've seen, suggests cutting the towers from 25+ storeys to 5. That's stupid. Kitchener desperately needs more housing, 5 storeys won't cut it. This is prime land near transit. We need to densify along transit, not put down a 5 storey walk-up. I think it's incredibly unfair of local residents to assume they matter more than the hundreds of families who could live in this development. I strongly disagree with their concerns, too. Shade? Who cares, you might even need to run your AC less. Traffic? It's only going to have 600 parking spots. I'm sure we can handle 600 more cars in the area, plus I'm sure young people living near transit will use transit. I know I do. The "concerned residents" claim to care about affordable housing "We don't need it. We don't want it, "said lane Harding, who lives on Michael Street. "We don't need more condos. We need more affordable housing. We live downtown. We see it," she said. but their petition only calls for the building to be made smaller, and have setbacks,and does not call to include any more affordable/subsidized/off market housing. If this was anything more than selfish nimbyism there'd be meaningful requests for low income housing. And if you check their petition (I'm sure you've been sent it by now) there's nothing of the sort. htt s: ou.leadnow.ca etitions reduce-the-hei hts-victoria-and- ark -towers So, I just want to say. Build more. Build bigger. Build faster. Kitchener/Waterloo is growing and it's already desperately short on places to stay. I've only been in town for 7 years, and I've seen housing costs skyrocket dramatically with no signs of slowing down. We need housing far more than we need to appease selfish busybodies who are upset about shade. Page 392 of 520 It would be great to see more affordable housing, more subsidized housing, more off market housing, but the path to that is not cutting the top 20 floors off this development. It would also be nicer to see larger units. More 3+ bedroom units. Places to raise a family, not just bachelor pads, but again... the path to that is not to cut the top 20 floors off this development. Thanks, Page 393 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 5:Ly AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Mayor; Debbie Chapman; KRedman@regionofwaterloo.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Three tower condo proposal at Victoria and Park Street I'm writing to express my opposition to the three tower condo development at Victoria and Park Streets in Kitchener. I want to be clear that I'm not opposed to growth in this region. However, I think unlimited growth and a business model for growth is harmful. The pattern that is emerging by developers is to propose a building, or buildings that completely ignore the existing zoning by laws, and then see how much of their proposal they can push through. They are mostly comprised of one bedroom units (more profitable), do not include affordable units (although we have no definition of what 'affordable' is), and do not aim high for environmentally sustainable design (such as net zero, solar, geothermal, wind, less harmful building materials, grey water, etc.). The concerns are always the same: large shadows on neighbouring houses, gardens and parks, increased traffic, wildly out of proportion in scale with the existing neighbourhood, not enough parking, no family sized units, no or very few affordable units, too many one bedroom units, tree removal, lack of green space, etc. Those of us who voice our concerns are made to feel foolish and out of touch with the times. When I look at Toronto, which I think is a disaster in terms of development, it reminds me of what people in the 50's, 60's, and 70's thought future cities would look like. As a child I was perplexed by these depictions of a sterile, greenless city, full of boring towers, monorails, and assorted flying modes of transit. These were the fantasies of people who thought radiation, asbestos, chemical pesticides, and preservative laden processed food were markers of progress. The over'condo'd' city looks remarkably similar to these fantasy depictions of the future. Like the proposal at Victoria and Park Streets, the buildings are devoid of character. There's a disorienting lack of sense of place. There's no evidence of craftsmanship, artistry, imagination, balance with nature, or sensitivity to human nature (our need for nature, privacy, security, community). The design for the towers at Victoria and Park Streets look so similar to so many other condo proposals in Kitchener, it's becoming more and more difficult to keep them straight. It's obvious there's no effort put in to integration with the existing neighbourhood. We're being unceremoniously shoved out of the way to let 'progress' proceed. We're living in a time where profit is everything. We've normalized food banks, homelessness, and the marginalizing of large groups of people. Our cities are being designed for people with money. I'm not convinced our region is going to grow as rapidly as has been forecast. It's no longer a city that's affordable. Its small town appeal is disappearing rapidly. Our future is likely to be populated by climate refugees, not single young people in the tech sector who don't seem to mind living in sterile boxes. My conversations with people who favour these ugly high rises is always the same...'It's good for business.' I feel we've lost our humanity. I'm disappointed that KW has not been more unique, inclusive, careful, respectful of the environment, and skeptical of following the latest trend when it comes to growth. We are valuing the wrong things. fear our communities will have a future of endless protracted fights to try to preserve a shred of our identities. Page 394 of 520 The Victoria and Park Street proposal should be aiming for beauty, compatibility, and environmental sensitivity. This proposal looks like the usual money grab that has become so depressingly common here in our region. Please, enough of this harmful development. It's very difficult and costly to correct these mistakes. You must think more deeply and carefully about the long term future of this region. You can and must do much better. Kitchener Sent from my Whone Page 395 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 4:39 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Petition to Reduce the heights of the Victoria and Park Tower development Attachments: red uce-the-heights-victoria -and -park-towers_December_9_2021.pdf Dear Mr. Schneider and Ms. Chapman, Please see a petition to reduce the heights of the proposed Victoria and Park Tower Development attached. Kind Regards, Page 396 of 520 First Name Last Name Signed by 251 people Tell us why you signed N2G 1M2 N2G1M2 N2g1m1 N2G 1M1 N2J OE7 N2J OE7 NOB2M1 VON 1V1 L6KOJ 1 N3C2V3 N2k 1W2 L1M2M2 M6P 4138 NOB2M1 NOb2N L7S 2H7 NOB 2M1 N2G1M1 N2L2N6 VON 1v1 N2G 1Z4 N2G 1M2 N2K3B8 N2T1V3 N2G 1.15 N2G1M1 N2G 1M1 N2K 1W2 N2G1M1 N2G 1M1 N2a2n4 N2G 1M1 N2G 1 M 2 Too much traffic volume for narrow one way streets, nota heritage design, way too gigantic for this corner, takes away privacy N2G 1M2 N2G 1M1 n2g1k4 n2g1k4 N2M 3S3 N2G 1K7 Building is way too high for the neighbourhood. It should be lower to match other residential towers recently built nearby. N2G 1M1 N2G 1M2 N2G 1P9 N2G 1P9 Page 397 of 520 First Name Last Name N2L 5P5 N2V1H4 N2H3L5 N2M 3V7 N2G 2C2 N2H 3R3 N2G 1Z5 N2G 1P3 N2G 4K3 N2h3h6 N2H2B6 N2M 2A9 N2M2B4 N2h2r9 N2H 6S3 N2G 4T7 N2G2S7 N2B 2Z2 N2G4M1 N2C1Y9 N2L5G6 N2G1Z7 N2H2T1 N2G1R2 N2G2C7 N2M 2MB N2G 1Z4 N2m 2b1 N2T 2E1 N2G1M2 N2N3E3 N2H 1K7 N2K 1P2 N2M 3H1 N2G2G2 N2g 1z8 N2H 3H7 N2h5j9 N2g1m7 N2H 3B N2M 1W9 N2H 2G1 Tell us why you signed I would like to see better integration into the existing streetscape. Mid to small high rise would be more favorably received in regard to size. Rein in developers who want to erect these massive structures. Design needs to be improved (heritage design), green space should be incorporated. Page 398 of 520 First Name Last Name postcode Tell us why you signed N2H1S1 N2G1M7 N2G 2T5 N2H 4H8 N2G 4X6 protect our heritage space for us whom live here now and for our future generations N2G 1Z7 These towers are out of control in this area. No more park land is given. Victoria Park is suffering from over use already. Tiny condos are not homes ---just a place that people stay in for a while. N2G2E9 N2H 1S7 arts N2G 2E8 I agree with the comments that new developments should be getting shorter as they approach low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. N2E 1S8 N2G 4V1 N2H 5A3 What is needed is affordable housing, not more high rises. N2N 1P7 N2H 4K3 Jamming hi -rise units into the downtown core is marring the KW skyline & impacting the quality of living for us all. So much looming intensification is not being balanced with integrated green space for outdoor recreation. The environmental impacts are also a sizeable concern. Fact is, families are not attracted to in living in these trumped up corrals - now or ever! Scale them down. n2e1s8 N2G 1K2 This would be a monstrosity sitting among the quaint single dwellings in the area not to mention a blight on the park! N2T 1S9 N2G 3E4 The Cities say they want to preserve farmland. Then explain why FischerHallman south of Bleams, Fairway east of Zeller and Waterloo west of Erbsville Rd nothing but detached single family homes. These areas would be a better fit for tall condos with the surrounding development instead of ruining neighbourhoods that have been around for 60+ years. Infilling is a way for developers to maximize profit at the expense of residents. N2G 1Z5 Proposed towers will threaten and help destroy the two residential communities of Victoria Park (heritage area) and Cherry Park ... 2 areas council has committed to protecting/preserving. N21 -6n2 N2G2G5 N2G 1Z7 Page 399 of 520 postcode Tell us why you signed N2L 2C4 These towers do not promote community building or a sense of belonging. These are cheaply made boxes in the sky that do not respond to the needs of KW residents. N2H 1N5 N2G 1Z5 Once again, this is a proposed development that does not comply with existing zoning or the City's official plan. It is time that developers abide by the rules. N2G1P8 Here are seven good reasons: https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollectiv e/7-reasons-why-high-rises-kill-livability/561536/ N2b 2s5 There are so many abandoned/derelict properties around like the old White Rose store that I feel before destroying heritage areas, lets€'ms clean up those deserted lots; make them have purpose again. Leta€'ms revitalize those sites before destroying farm land, forests and history. N2H 3.19 N2H 11-6 N2G3H6 N2G 1Z5 N2L 1C3 N2HOA N2G OC4 n2g1z5 Everywhere you look, all you see is condos jammed into a small downtown core. With all the new bike lanes and one way streets, traffic is already a nightmare.... so much for living in a nice quiet heritage area near the park. Seems like nothing is protected anymore and the developers seem to have more say then the actual hardworking tax payers that live in the area. The condo Heights keep changing and getting higher and higher .... do we really even have a say anymore ??? N2G 2138 N2L 1134 N2H2J4 N2H 2X6 N2G 4t7 N2H 6R7 N2G 3H3 N2G 3133 N2H 5N3 N2G 2X6 N2G 2S9 N2133139 N2M 3S7 N2H4B7 N2L 2T8 Page 400 of 520 First Name Last Name N2H 5S5 N213 2T6 N2G1M2 N2g1m2 N2E 4H2 N213 21-3 N2H 6R8 N2E 4H2 N2H2X9 N2G1M2 N2G 2136 N2b 1w8 N2E 3N7 N2H 6G3 N2H2N9 N2m1j5 N2G4Z6 N2G 2C6 N2m3e1 N2M1X1 N2M1x1 N2M2T4 N2G 4Z6 n2g4z6 N2G 1Y2 N2G4Z6 N2m5e8 N2H 2R8 N2G 4Z6 N2G 4Z6 N2N 2A2 N2e1w2 Tell us why you signed I signed because livable cities are no place for monster towers that dominate green spaces and historic downtown neighbourhoods. Four to six story buildings as in European cities are conducive to medium density human scale architectural design. Those towers will ruin heritage area and need wider roads and more green space to avoid polution I live in a high rise near Victoria & Park Streets. It's almost impossible to turn left in or out of our driveway now, let alone with all the added traffic from this development. The towers are way to tall for the area. It is also a high traffic area already, the other towers that was just built is sufficient for the area. Leave the Victoria Park and cherry st area for smaller single dwellings. Put the high rises outside the inner city. The existing buildings on Victoria are high enough. Traffic already is heavy. All those residents will only add to the congestion. Page 401 of 520 N2G4z7 N2G4Z6 N2G 2C6 N2G4Z6 N 2G 1Z5 N 2G 1Z5 N2B 2T6 N2G 1M2 N2G 1P4 N2G 1Z5 N2G 1M2 N2G1R3 N2M3S1 N2G1M1 N2g1m3 N2G 1M3 N2g1m3 N2G 4Z6 Tell us why you signed This street cannot accommodate any more traffic! It's very dangerous as it is Victoria Street traffic is already too busy and hazardous, especially since it's one lane each way right after Park heading west. Tall developments don't fit into neighborhood character. traffic too congested already, The height of these buildings massively exceeds the zoning (MU1) developed with the city and the neighborhood. The sheer size of these buildings has only one purpose and that is to maximize the profit of the developers. Adding to their profit - they do not pay any development or other infrastructure costs. These costs will be paid by the taxpayers. Traffic grid lock Please be respectful of the neighbours in the Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods and reduce the height of the planned development at Victoria and Park Streets. The City says it wants to protect established downtown residential neighbourhood, and this building is in the what is supposed to be the transition zone from high density building to the low density residential areas. Not trusting of the studies done by the developer and unsure if they meet our residential concerns 1. Corner of Park and Victoria is already a traffic nightmare. 2. Victoria Park Place residents already sit for many minutes trying to get out of their driveway. This will make the problem worse. 3. Not being able to see the sky for low level housing is awful. 4. Traffic through the park has already crowded traffic on Victoria. Now it will be worse. N2b3s2 N2G 1M3 The towers are a eye sore N2G 1M4 N2G 1M3 to much traffic N2G 1M4 N2G1M4 Page 402 of 520 First Name Last Name postcode Tell us why you signed N2G1M4 KW is losing its identity and becoming another Toronto. N2G 1P3 N2G 1P3 N2M3T9 Absolutely ridiculous project at the entrance to a heritage neighbourhood. N2G 1M3 n2g2b7 Nob2hO N2n2a2 N2k2r8 N2B 2A8 N3C4G2 N2B2S8 N2N 2A2 E4H 2G1 n2a3z4 N2E 4J8 N2G1M3 N1G1M2 KOA ILO NOG IPO 20175 N2A 2S3 N2G3E9 N2G 1M4 N2G1M4 N2G1M4 N2G1M4 N2a2n4 N2G 1M1 N2M 5M7 N2g 1M4 N2g 1m4 N2G 1Z8 N2P 2K3 There is already too much noise. Neverending construction. Too much traffic. Something of this size on that corner will literally shadow other buildings and homes, which is incredibly unfair to residents. This is two doors away from my friend. This high rise is not needed in this neighbourhood We can't destroy the culture that is already here. My mother lives there. This will destroy the beautiful sky line views!!! Part of the history and charm surrounding Victoria Park are the historical homes and their quiet streets. A development of this height in a residential neighborhood like ours compromises that and risks pushing out the families that call this neighbour hood home. This height is all about profit. I agree that density in the downtown core is good, but when you have something this high, thats not density its profit making. Page 403 of 520 postcode Tell us why you signed N2G1M4 N2G 1Z4 Part of the history and charm surrounding Victoria Park are the historical homes and the quiet streets. These monstrous buildings are ruining that and will cause more traffic along with the already ridiculous traffic caused with the boom of development around Victoria Park. These buildings should not be the height they are proposingM I have lived in Victoria Park for almost 20 years this makes me so sad/mad they are ruining this beautiful historic area. N2ROP5 N2H 3W5 N2n3g4 N2H 3L9 N2B2N9 N2h4j8 N2H 1T8 N2G 2E9 N2g 1z5 N2C1C8 Because I am helping my friends who have homes all around Victoria park N2rOh9 N 2g2c7 LOR ICO N5C3C3 N 2e2y4 N2M 5G7 N3C 3K9 N2H 4J1 Too tall, too much, not enough affordable housing, traffic issues on Victoria - it's already congested at that corner, does not fit into neighbourhood, oh, the list goes on!! N21VI 1W1 We need low income housing. N2M 1G6 N2h5s3 N2M 2W4 N2G 1K5 N2G1L8 Page 404 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2021 11:31 AM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria Street 92-110 Park Street Proposal. Good day. I have lived in the Cherry Park ward for 35 years and have seen a lot of change. I am not opposed to change. But I am concerned with the current proposal building such enormous housing complexes and the impact the volume of new people/vehicles will have on our local resources such as schooling, recreation, and most importantly safety. Currently the schools in our ward are over crowded and have little green space available. St.Johns school relies on access to Cherry Park for their daily required exercise breaks. The speed and volume of traffic currently risks our children safety crossing Strange Street to get to the park. Adding such an enormous volume of new residents and vehicles will only add to this danger. Cherry Park is also utilized for sport activities which also bring many Kitchener -Waterloo residence to our neighbourhood. There is limited parking available and these families are required to cross at pedestrian cross walks currently available. Thank goodness those have been placed on Strange and Park. Due to the large volumes of traffic currently Cherry Street is used as a throughway when traffic backups or Victoria due to sheer volumes, accidents which happen regularly at Park and Victoria currently as people run yellows and reds to keep moving from the backup of volumes currently. It is ridiculous. What is the plan to reduce the traffic that will ultimately be seen on Cherry and Walnut street as the additional vehicles are jntroduced to our neighborhood. We have an elderly population who are not always able to outrun a vehicle booking up Cherry St to avoid the traffic delays on Victoria street. It has become a dangerous situation now yet alone once adding these volumes will introduce. While we have elderly people we also have an increased volume of young families, toddlers who are not always aware of the speed of the cars. Children who are unable to judge the speed of these vehicles and attempt to cross the road. I could go on and on. I believe and certainly hope you understand our concerns and will provide SOLUTIONS to ensure the safety of the residents in YOUR ward. What are the traffic calming initiatives on the table? We have been begging for this for years and it has fallen in deaf ears. SLOW DOWN signs are not the answer. We EXPECT solutions! We DESERVE solutions. Page 405 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2021 8:05 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park St development Eric, I'm sending a note to express my opinion on the proposed development at this corner based on the information posted. A) I think the height should be capped at the adjacent towers heights not taller. B) I think the parking should be higher to meet min 1 per residential unit and sufficient for business space proposed. If you look a the student places along Albert in Waterloo almost all the ground level business' are vacant. Not just pandemic.. no parking is not good for business. If you look at Vincenzo -Bauer development it has lots of parking... and has good transit too.. both are important Q since with this development will mean there are 6 towers in 1 city block..) think the city needs to commit to turning their yard to parkland.. there needs to be better trail connectivity between these new buildings and cherry st/Joseph/Victoria trails... D) what about light industrial space in this new build? We need some car repair places uptown.. or at least the ability to have one. E) kudos on the bike parking F) ratio of family residential needs to be higher than in other towers ... there are too many lbedrooms in these towers typically ..there is a shortage of family housing 2 and 3 bedroom units need to be 75% of the units available. We need diversity in downtown population... not just young or old.. I think that is it. I look forward to more information.. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Page 406 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 9:33 PM To: Sarah Marsh; Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Cc: Mayor; Scott Davey; Dave Schnider; John Gazzola; Kelly Galloway-Sealock; Paul Singh; Bil loannidis; Christine Michaud; Margaret Johnston; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca; Rosa Bustamante Subject: [EXTERNAL] Housing mix at Victoria and Park Streets Hello city councillors and staff, I was glad to learn about the plan for three high-rise residential towers at the corner of Victoria and Park Streets. I support the move to intensify and provide housing near downtown Kitchener. This location seems good for new high- rises, even if I do sympathize with the height impacts on nearby detached homes. I was puzzled and disappointed to see these buildings will again feature mostly one -bedroom condo units. I understand this plan comes from the for-profit developer. I ask city staff and councillors to consider creative ways to encourage larger two- and three-bedroom units that accommodate families with kids. Our city has seen many, many one- and two- bedroom units added near downtown - which is great! But it's not the only thing Kitchener needs. Well over half the home -seekers I know are couples with kids (or will soon have them). Many of them (like my own family) prefer to live near downtown amenities and transit. Where are the options for them? Our community clearly needs larger spaces, and these could be located in multi -unit towers. I believe there is demand for more family living space near downtown and not only in Kitchener's suburban outskirts. If I'm wrong, I would be happy to see data that shows one -and two-bedroom condo units are disproportionately undersupplied in Waterloo Region. Park Street, being close to other family homes and Victoria Park, would be a great spot for much-needed family housing. What can the city do to encourage or require developers to include more of these units? Do we need financial incentives? Zoning requirements? Trade concessions when we give developers exemptions for zoning, set backs and floor space ratio? On a related note, the old Electrohome factory site on Shanley Street will soon be turned into a multi -unit building. I welcome the intensification in my own neighbourhod. Here, too, I hope we'll see a mix of unit sizes that can house both families and single folks. Thanks for your work, Page 407 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 10:03 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at Victoria and Park Good morning, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park development (on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener). We just moved very close by, to the North end of Theresa street, this past summer. We love the neighbourhood for the park and proximity to the downtown core. We knew there were high rise buildings nearby to be completed but trusted that since we were part of the historic district, that they wouldn't come any closer. We see there is a proposal for an almost 40 storey tower (as well as 2 others of similar heights) at the end of our street. A neighbour informed us it's zoned for a 10 story building so I don't understand how the plan can be for a building so much taller to go there. Can you explain to me how the plan can be for a much taller set of buildings when the Zoning is for 10 stores? We were also disappointed to learn that the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood. I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of our backyard, which will very likely be impacted by the shadows. I am worried about the loss of sunlight, which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my neighbourhood. One of the reasons we bought our home was that it was located in the heritage district. I am concerned being so near such a large development and the loss of the feeling of the heritage district. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street, through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee, as well as the end of our street. Its already going to have a large increase of traffic due to the other large towers going up and its currently quite busy and very difficult to turn left at the end of our road. I think it would be much better for the neighbourhood to keep these towers to what they are currently zoned at, 10 stories, maximum. Large towers like the plans suggest, would be a much better fit in the downtown core, nearer taller buildings that already exist. Best, Page 408 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 27, 2021 11:35 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Mixed -Use Redevelopment on Park & Victoria Hello Mr Schneider, As we were walking down Park street the other day, we passed the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street where an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are being proposed to allow for multi -tower mixed-use redevelopment. As a resident of Kitchener living near to the site of the proposed Special Policy Area, we want to voice our support for the proposed development and for similar mixed-use development in our neighbourhood. Continuing intensification like this is an important step in the right direction for Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo. With the proposed development offering 1150 residential units, this will increase the supply of housing around downtown Kitchener and help address the growing housing affordability crisis. It will also allow for more residents to live within walking distance of the plethora of amenities available in downtown Kitchener. In particular, two elements of the proposal we especially support are the removal of minimum setbacks and increased floor space ratio. These regulations unnecessarily restrict the efficient use of space and prevent the levels of intensification necessary to address the climate crisis. Kitchener has the potential to grow into a world-class, walkable, and sustainable city. High-density mixed-use development like this is necessary to make that a reality. Sincerely, Page 409 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 8:07 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Signage for Park and Victoria Proposed Development Hello Eric, Can you tell me what the requirements are for the posting of signs alerting the community to a proposed development? And tell me, is it the city's responsibility to post and maintain the signs or the developers. I feel that the signage for the proposed development at the corner of Park and Victoria is inadequate. The sign advertising office space for rent on the corner is much more along the lines of what I would expect for a development of this scale. Also one of the two signs that I'm aware of it propped up against a house and not even on the front lawn. This doesn't seem like fair public notice. Page 410 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 3:23 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] apartment buildings @ 146-162 Victoria St. S and 92-110 Park St. Mr. Schneider, I received the neighbourhood meeting announcement in my mailbox today. Since the WIFI connection is not alway stable in this building, I have chosen to send my comments and question to you which I hope you will add to "the pot". I realize there may be answers to some of my questions already so I will be happy to read your answers. I am sure if I sat for long enough I could think of lots more comments and questions to ask. These seem to be the most important. These 1150 residential units are being added to an area that already has a large amount of people living on Victoria St. South. Parking issues: will there.be underground parking? If so, I still fear the extra large group of people who will be traveling on Victoria St. and Park St. And with a large portion of Victoria St. S. only being 2 lanes, how will these 2 lanes be affected by the extra traffic. • Coming out of 205 Victoria St. S. driveway is already very difficult. Sometimes it takes 5-10 minutes already to get out of the driveway. With more traffic on the street we will have much longer waits to turn out of our lane way. How are the residences on Park St. that will be sitting in the shadow of these new buildings be compensated for the decrease in the value of their properties? And how will the large number of heritage homes in this area survive? Thank you, Kitchener ON PS I certainly hope that answers and concerns to these new towers will be reported in the newspapers, etc. for all to read! Page 411 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2uu iu:54 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St S & 92-110 Park St I'm sure you're likely to hear mostly negative feedback from nearby residents, so as someone who lives about a 10 minute walk away I would like to register my support for this project. Kitchener still needs more high quality high-rise residential development. This project is displacing very little (e.g., a former print shop and its surface parking) and is within a kilometer of Central Station, and thus very consistent with the City's plans to develop intensity in the downtown area and near public transit. This attractive building has the potential to be a great addition to the area and to bring more residents to make transit and business in downtown Kitchener even more vibrant. I'm sure you're already aware of this piece in The Record showing that I'm not alone in this: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/12/10/building towers in neighbourhoods is desperately -needed -to -add -more -housing -for -people -wanting -to -live in waterloo region html Page 412 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 9:21 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria & Park Development Hey Eric, I'd like to voice my support for the proposed development at the corner of Victoria St and Park St in Kitchener. Regrettably, I am unable to attend the community meeting planned for the evening of February 8th. I think that this project is important for the future of our city, and it should be able to be constructed. I live in the "Central Fredrick" neighbourhood now, having moved here from an address in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, so I feel like I can understand how this development might impact the lives of the local residents. I do understand the frustrations that residents have, that these tall buildings don't "fit" alongside the single- family homes on its surrounding sides. However, I also understand that this stretch of road will eventually look much different. Would it be possible to know what the city's vision for this area is, bounded by the rail tracks/Park/Victoria/Joseph, so that residents can understand how this development will fit within the future context of the city rather than the present? Thanks! Page 413 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 3:07 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Development Eric Schneider, Senior Planner Dear Eric, Thank -you for inviting us to respond to the proposed development in our neighbourhood at Vlctoris S and Park St. I'm not opposed to development. My very serious concerns are twofold for our area and for the entire city: 1. In view of the crisis in affordable housing, this and other new apartment buildings need to provide the majority of units for middle and low income. Instead of having 9 or 12 units for low income, make it the reverse with that number for higher income residents. Surely the crisis is clear. I encourage you to be courageous in allocating enough residences for the middle and low income earners, those with disabilities and yes, the homeless. The suffering and hardships they endure take priority over the preferences of those with money. That is socio-economic ethics 101. 2. Traffic on Victoria just south of Park is already tough. Trying to make a left turn frn from our apartments (215 and 205 Victoria) is more than difficult already. Imagine what another large building will do. Thank -you for ways you will be creative to actually DO something about these issues. Respectfully, Barbara I invite you to visit my website, www.artoflivingpeacefullv.com From the sacred, traditional land of the Anishnaabe, Haudenosaunee and Neutral peoples. Let us respect and be grateful for the history, languages, and cultures of the First Nations, Metis, Inuit, and all First Peoples of Canada, whose presence continues to enrich all. In South Sudan, high school girls rejoiced, "Enough is a feast" as they were grateful to get food that day, a plate of beans of rice.. www.ssnal.or THANK -YOU to all who support Solidarity with South Sudan and others in need. www.solidarityssudan.ora; Page 414 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 8:21 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St. S & 92-110 Park St Good Morning Eric, I just want to express my support for the proposed development at 146-162 victoria & 92-110 Park St. This is the exact thing the city of kitchener/ region needs to approve. It is a well thought out design from an out of town developer/ architect. Approving this will show larger Toronto area developers that Kitchener is open for business, which will encourage a more diverse number of projects and ensure developers that want to do business in Kitchener better propose quality designed buildings. This will hopefully discourage another DTK type building being constructed downtown. NIMBIES are loud on projects like this, but they are not the majority of residents. I hope their voices are heard, but the city understands that those against change are always the loudest. More housing is what we need in this region and we needed it yesterday. This project alone will not solve our issues, but it is a start. Thanks, Page 415 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 11:38 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park & Victoria Streets Development Attachments: Letter to Developer & City - CPNA.pdf Hello Eric & Kevin, The Cherry Park Neighbourhood Association Board met on January 25th to discuss the proposed development at the corner of Park & Victoria Streets. After much discussion we finalized the attached letter for the developer and the City planner. We felt it was important that we have an official response to the development from our Association. It is important that you are aware that we are following and studying the development process and that we do have concerns. Sincerely, CPNA President Page 416 of 520 January 28, 2022 Eric Schneider Senior Planner City of Kitchener PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Schneider, I am writing on behalf of the Cherry Park Neighbourhood Association (CPNA) in response to the proposed development at the corner of Victoria and Park. At a Residents' Information Meeting, jointly organized by Cherry Park and Victoria Park Neighbourhoods, we heard many residents express concerns about the impact of this development on the community. We would like to stress that most residents understand the need for, and benefits of, urban intensification. We prefer to see our surrounding farmland and wildlife habitats preserved, rather than disappear under urban sprawl. Concerns included the need for affordable units and units built for families, the height, and the need for increased amenities to meet the needs of the growing downtown population, especially the need for more green space. To that end, we recommend that the Victoria/Park development: 1. Preserve more of the mature trees on the lot(s) ; 2. Follows the intent of the official plan for this location (transition from the UGC/Innovation district); 3. Includes at least the same number of affordable/attainable units as the number of households that are being displaced by this development; 4. Provides specific number (to be determined) of two and three-bedroom units; 5. Designated lands or cash -in -lieu to increase parkland in the core; 6. Building materials and standards based on environmental sustainability; 7. Works with a Citizens' Engagement Committee composed of residents from affected neighbourhoods, including Cherry Park, Victoria Park, the developers' representatives, and City Planners to ensure ongoing consultation and communication throughout the development process. Page 417 of 520 We are committed to a positive and collaborative approach to development in our neighbourhood. We want to work with developers, city staff, and other neighbourhoods to continue to make our city a healthy, vibrant, and inclusive place to live. We would like to be informed of opportunities to contribute to this development process. Thank you for considering our input; we look forward to hearing you. Sincerely yours, CPNA President CC' Councillor Debbie Chapman, City of Kitchener, Debbie.chapman@)kitchener.ca Kevin Muir, GSP Group, (Applicant), kmuir@gspgroup.ca Page 418 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 9:06 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Victoria/Park condo building Hiya, I live on Schneider avenue, been here since 2002. I'd like to add a letter of support for this project. I think the attitude that a large building will ruin the neighbourhood to be completely ridiculous. When they built the Iron Horse towers on Queen st. it was a big improvement to the neighbourhood and a lot of people now have a decent place to live. I asci also kind of sad to near that the project on tl-e turner of Mill & Queen was scaled back due to opposition from these neighbourhood associations. I would like to say that they don't speak for everyone that lives in this neighbourhood and some of us would gladly welcome more people into this great part of the city. It seems like these folks are opposed to everything and they have time and financial resources to shout their perspective over that of anyone else that lives here and doesn't have the time/money/know-how to setup a website and attend the community meetings. regards Page 419 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 7:44 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria St S pedestrian/cyclist safety concerns Dear Mr. Schneider, Me and my family live on Theresa St, nearby the proposed development, and we have some concerns related to pedestrian/cyclist safety. With the proposed development, there we imagine the use of a few new pedestrian and cyclist travel routes, for example... 1. Development residents may want to cycle or walk to Central Station to connect to public transit 2. Development residents may want to cycle or walk to the Iron Horse Trail (likely at the Victoria St crossing) for travel or recreation 3. Development residents may want to cycle or walk to Victoria Park 4. Development residents in Grade 7 or 8 may want to cycle to Courtland Avenue Public School 5. Neighbourhood residents may want to cross Victoria St to shop or dine at the development businesses 6. Development residents may want to walk to Downtown Kitchener to shop or dine In addition, a child in our family will be attending King Edward Public School, and the best walking route is along Park St. These routes involve pedestrians and cyclists moving along Victoria St, Park St, and Jubilee Dr, and crossing at the Victoria/Park intersection. Our concern is that pedestrian/cyclist safety in these areas could use improvement, and we believe both development and neighbourhood residents would benefit from these improvements, especially given the development's 592 bicycle parking spats and its close proximity to local amenities. How does the development fit in with or affect plans in these areas to improve pedestrian/cyclist safety? Are these areas already considered in the new Cycling & Trails Master Plan? Would any improvements be possible to implement during development? Here are some ideas we have for safety improvements: Victoria St: space for a multi -use trail, to enable this arterial road to carry pedestrians/cyclists along with the cars and transit (route 20, iExpress 204) it already supports i. Jubilee Dr: separated bike lane, for safe bike access to Victoria Park Park St / Victoria St: separated entrance/exit lanes to the development with a pedestrian island between, for safer sidewalk use (at each stage pedestrians would only need to check for cars exiting or cars entering, not both) 4. Park St / Victoria St: full sidewalk visibility at development exits for turning cars 5. Victoria/Park intersection: Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrians with disabilities and extended walk signal during pedestrian crossing 6. Victoria/Park intersection: ban "right turn on red" to improve pedestrian safety and make development car exits easier Our family's current experience is that the Victoria/Park intersection feels rather dangerous to cross as a pedestrian (especially with "right turn on red") and that the risk of cycling on Victoria St or Jubilee Dr is far too high for us. As this Page 420 of 520 area of the city sees new development and more people and businesses, we hope that everyone can enjoy life here and travel safely regardless of mode of transportation. Thank you, Page 421 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 5:41 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria - LVP - Meeting with Developer Attachments: LPV_Notes_Meeting.pdf; LPV_Presentation_DOV_Capital.pdf Good Afternoon Mr Schneider and Ms. Chapman, As you may be aware, a group of residents in the Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods have started a new group called Livable Park and Victoria (https://Iivableparkandvictoria.com/). The goal of the group is to advocate for a livable, compatible and inviting development at the corner of Park and Victoria. The developers, DOV capital, were kind enough to meet with us this afternoon, and we were able to have a good discussion about our concerns. Please see the summary notes of the concerns we expressed to the developers and our presentation attached. Kind Regards, Page 422 of 520 Response to the Park -Victoria Development I oppose this development because it is contrary for the Official Plan for Kitchener. The Kitchener Official Plan was created over several years of discussions and consultations, and carefully crafted to balance the need for intensification in the inner core to protect our valuable farmlands and our water table, and the need to protect our established downtown residential neighbourhoods and the character of our city. It was decided at that time to restrict the high-density developments to certain streets only, or portions thereof. It was also decided that it was necessary to include transition zones between the high-density areas and the lower -density areas, so as not to devalue and destroy the people's right and ability to enjoy their own properties. The area in discussion was deliberately designated a transition zone and limited to low to medium density development. This was not an oversight or an accident of planning. The proposed development goes completely against the vision and reasoning for the existence of this zone. Having read the justification report by the developer, I found no convincing reason to abandon the Official Plan and its accompanying zoning. By its own surveys, the City has already met its intensification targets for 2030 with the projects already built or in progress, so the need for more intensification is not relevant. It is true that there is a lack of affordable housing in the City at this time, but none of the units proposed in this project would help in this matter. The developer deems units at 80% of market value for their proposed development to be affordable. Traditionally, affordable housing meant no more than 1/3 your monthly income for rent, or no more than 3 to 4 times the median yearly income for buying a home/condo. The current median income for Kitchener Centre is $47,129, which would put the proposed units way above affordable. Plus the majority of the units in the proposal are only for 1,2 or 3 people at the most per unit, making them not suitable for the majority of families. Canada needs families with at least 2 children to even come close to a stable population. This development would actually deepen the affordability problem in the area as it is destroying 5 homes and one low-rise apartment building which houses 11 people on disability pensions or with low incomes. None of these people would be able to afford even a one -bedroom unit in the proposal. Add to this the fact that none of the so-called "affordable" units have means to keep them at that price. They could very easily be all bought up by an investor and re -sold at the market rate. The developer may argue that they can't make a profit making truly affordable units or larger units, but this is not believable as other developers are building new homes all around in our neighbourhood. They are not losing money, or they would not be doing it. A far more suitable development for this location would be stacked townhouses, like the ones on Gage Avenue or the lovely mixed-use development at 150 Caroline Street in Waterloo. These developments did not lose their developers money. Such developments would fit the Official Plan and the Zoning for this proposed area. They also did not create parking and traffic nightmares for the surrounding area. Page 423 of 520 Livable Park and Victoria is a resident group advocating for a livable, compatible and inviting development at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street, Kitchener. We have several concerns about 146 Victoria that we would like to discuss, these are: a Housing affordability and creating housing for diverse households 9 Compatibility of tall buildings will the surrounding existing low rise neighbourhoods Adverse impacts of the building to microclimate on the surrounding streetscape and neighbourhoods. 0 The loss of tree canopy, especially along Park Street. Housing affordability and creating housing for diverse households Two thirds of the units are proposed as one -bedroom units, with the remainder being two-bedroom units. In order to welcome a wider range of households, we would like to see a larger portion of units be two-bedroom units, and the inclusion of three-bedroom units. In an article in The Record, Steven Ruse stated that the project could consist of a mix of condo and rental. In the interest of providing housing that is off limits to speculators, we would like to see at least a third of the development consist of a purpose built rental building. Compatibility of tall buildings with the surrounding existing low rise neighbourhoods + The building is surrounded by existing low rise neighbourhoods. We would like the design and scale to reflect the context. There is little in the current design that acknowledges the surrounding low-rise context with regards to massing and scale. Adverse impacts of the building to microclimate on the surrounding streetscape and neighbourhoods The lack of set back and scale of the building results in adverse effects on the surrounding microclimate: Wind modeling of the development shows that wind conditions around the development will be substantially less comfortable than current conditions. Shadow studies indicate that some neighbouring properties will be in the shadow of the development for hours a day. For example, some properties to the south will be in the shadow starting at 2pm until sunset during the equinoxes, a period of 5 hours. 0 We ask that set backs be increased to allow space for wind mitigation measures including soft landscaping like trees and shrubs. 0 We ask that towers be reconfigured to reduce shadows on neighbouring residential properties to a maximum of 1 hour a day during the equinoxes (the standard in Mississauga). Page 424 of 520 The loss of tree canopy, especially along Park Street. We would like Park Street to remain tree -lined and for Victoria Street to become a tree lined street. o We ask that setbacks along Park street be increased to retain the existing mature trees. That cash in lieu be provided to the City for all the trees on site that are not retained. Page 425 of 520 raw O N LO 4- 0 O N N O1 c� a U) O O i U 0 O O� N O C O � L O N L � O O U > C L W L CD C >, U cu C O C N L Q O >`+= O U � 0 • 0 0 O N LO 4- 0 ti N N O1 t 0 -00 �� -�e cn �m 0 a OO O U 'S O i U N a) ^ cm x L E Ml - O L- U la) Cfn 0 �_>-0 N U a N N O E 0 c X 0O(D N L000 ) -L 4= -00 cu UoO0 �c c .� a) Or U� i� �N i �0 caO=O 0i S UE �c4-,C: m 0 cu a v _l O N LO 4- 0 co N N O1 O N LO 0 m N � ¢ 2 n � Q) S c � \ \ � / O $ \ � E co U F- � � k R .: 4211 42- \ 2 .� o � O / $ \ CO E s \ / $ � b ƒ cL g w c = � 2 CO ) .� LQ-) / m \ >- 4- •� O 2 / criQ © LL � CO \ $ % $ W 2 ./ O % C/), ./ © 2 \CU crj tz \ _ % 42 � � \ .� % .? Q) c _ ? CO O N LO 0 m N � ¢ 2 n � � N txoX m O LID � � � o � O Q � I m � L O � L O Q co i t0 U c V Q) � O O � O D L co Tw i 0 0 O MR �r -1 (9 O N LO 4- 0 O (Y) a� c� IZ L 1I� ■rI f L !l a Qj Qj cn " viz a..� '< o o ,°; cx Qj W- co •o L. C.) ° a > z v a..l 4Q •� p• � aim � p� 4cn CRV cf)o m O N LO 4- 0 C7 N O1 AV17- JW. LV�B ._ Air= � w l AW e- Jw s �AW AV AFJIF IF -P ICE_ j mr ME T., O O N LO 4- 0 N C7 N O1 L- 0 0 0 4 _0 C c 0 L 0 0 L txoc L 0 a c Uo c L X ai a N -6 an N -010 0- (i 4-Jc0 N M N N Ln 4-1 c lzT N cf • • • • a T., O O N LO 4- 0 N C7 N O1 0 0 AL, W m Y L m CL �L CLO t Ln co O N LO 4- 0 C7 C7 N O1 L- 0 O N O Q� O (/) O L L 3 c O O c O 'a O � U Ln -0 � C a) co O N LO 4- 0 C7 C7 N O1 C.. m O N LO 4- 0 C7 N c6 - � rr� 1 , �{ lg �i �t llyk �{ h � h 1t tis t L 7, 57, 4 ��[ ,3 + 9, k; .�h. 4i- t�ii9�yj,'} lye"1y� 0 �'_L13ir, },y�, 1RI }iii y;' ti�dis 1q'3� 7W' L 4} IL • 1r�`'�a l.'1� ►7a NX 14 :. k4 - 5y�^'yi�: iL Yf„' L V i J C.. m O N LO 4- 0 C7 N c6 L J fD -J > c _ L U Q. d-1 Q1 = L Ln N Q X O 4 - im CO ■ i ■ ■ i C.. m O N LO 4- 0 C7 N c6 U f6 Q� (n N (31L- 4- Ln 4 - Ln O L (n N Ln (Ij Co rLn V N Q� U v m (a a rc ti O N LO 4- 0 LO C7 N O1 O N LO 4- 0 O C7 N O1 a) N N L 4-J L � N � L 0 -J Q Q C VI (3) _0 -0 CL6 c 0 L N a co d + ■ ■ a e O N LO 4- 0 O C7 N O1 1+t'��r r• . S x3 t i r ' `r' a� f i4 LuCL 1 O N LO 4- 0 co C7 N O1 r _ u ` AL1 0 0 cu 4-1 C) CL Ln CL r F� V) f0 O N M tLoN C O L a -J N O N M P W O }+ aJ c O O co +=J � U Ln c E O 41 U cn Q O N O N d1 O > Q 0 on V � ON a O L N a--' 41 4-1 n N m O N LO 4- 0 N N O1 N QJ L N N .2 4-J 'N L _0 (n �_0 = ca x W N }' Ln cn Q) .0 O a -J (B L Q) c U W4- a L OQ C�O>, OOC C U� d t_C0E =3 E v�— C �_ M4- O—`�f6 -0 C, �.0 �coO��C0 ..0 Qx C �— Cc` cn 0 t1A EQ)CN> O t O w Q) C � O— m O O N LO 4- 0 C7 N O1 E � N O m .>> N O L U) N O to .0 L O U O U O 0) r- (� U).Q O N � .� -o p M O m O O (u 70 O > - m N N p _ � C E O N O cn O cn L. o O \ \ \ O N LO 0 LO 'IT � ¢ 2 n � } �\}\ l ) �9 & (\} { k %�( § { 2 \ k \ \\\ ,at / k}7 ) » t ° ° [ \ {! * ! \y{ (\ƒ{$ Ee \/)\( .5 2[/E/ E � C 0 a) E@ � -r Z 0-0 � 0 _0 \ E c � cu � : E•— .�.� I.— @ " Q E � 0 / 2 E b -C 0 C:E $ @ CD M cu % @ m =3% = % _ E % E �� 7 Cl) �o � @ Q \ \ \ O N LO 0 LO 'IT � ¢ 2 n � 0 (9 O N LO 0 0 c6 U) L O -C i O a) O U) U +r Q ^� I_ O N C 0 o E Q N � 0 O O O 00 CO C Cll 0) O _p) cB O CN CU O U N Q — O "0 N OLE > N cII U O (o Q O a Q {— c E _ O a--� Co C1 tea^)` Co Cll U O � C ca cn -0 N m o O E� E -� � U •E Cll (n O co C: ,� L L O W (ll Cm � N O O m x N U cn � U U) N U E U � U ° ° > � 0 (9 O N LO 0 0 c6 L O -C i O U) U Q ^� I_ C 0 o E to � 0 O O O O CO O E N t6 — O L O N 0 (9 O N LO 0 0 c6 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 11:08 PM To: Eric Schneider, Garett Stevenson Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Requesting a cnai Feb. 3, 2022 Dear Eric and Garett, It was good to meet you at the January 12th meeting with Dov Capital about the proposed development at Park and Victoria. A number of us have taken on the responsibility of participating with groups that reflect our interests and commitment to our neighbourhood and the City as a whole. Our groups, Victoria Park Development Committee, Cherry Park, and the Liveable Park and Victoria Group, have been burning the midnight oil to read the Official Plan, the Secondary Plan, the Tall Building Guidelines, and the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual, to name a few. We have been asked by each of our groups to communicate with the City in an effort to better understand and participate in future developments in our area. As long-time residents of downtown, we feel that we have made special contributions to our neighbourhoods which have added to Kitchener being a vibrant, friendly, and exciting place to live. We appreciate that we are in the midst of a housing crisis and we support the intensification of the city with the aim of providing much needed housing for a wide range of individuals. But we are confused. We believe that the guidelines and by-laws laid out in the City documents do not fit with the proposed development by Dov Capital. We would like your help in understanding your perspective. We would also like to get advice from you on how to move forward with some of our priorities such as green space, affordability, compatible and predictable development in ensuring we maintain liveable and diverse neighbourhoods in downtown Kitchener. We would appreciate a chat with you some time after the Neighbourhood Information Meeting on Feb. 8th. We are a group of four engaged community members who represent a broad range of residents in the downtown core. We suggest a meeting in the afternoon (perhaps around 1 or 2 pm?) on Feb. 10 or Feb. 14 - 17. If those days/times don't work for you, please propose some others. These are just starting points. Many thanks for considering our request, Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association Development Committee Page 447 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 5:09 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at Park and Victoria Attention Eric Schneider Regarding Proposed Development at Park and Victoria Hello Eric, Prior to the meeting on February 8, we want to summarize our thoughts regarding this development. While we support intensification at this site, we believe it should comply with the City of Kitchener's official plan, the City's design guidelines and current zoning. Our concerns include the following: 1. Specifically, the City Of Kitchener's Urban Design manual regarding tall buildings, states that designing for transition "creates harmonious relationships between a tall building and its surroundings" It also states "Tall buildings should not interrupt or impose upon an existing or planned neighbourhood or the public realm." The current design violates these guidelines in several ways. 2. An example of the above, is the creation of sun shadows by this development which would affect hundreds of surrounding homes and properties for up to five hours a day. 3. Further, the plan includes the loss of at least 50 mature trees at a time council is vowing to increase the city tree canopy. 4. There are no development setbacks compatible with surrounding housing/communities. 5. It is impossible to justify inflating the FSR for the proposed high-rise towers on the site up to 11, at least three times the original, allowing drastic increases in height/density 6. Only one-third of the units would be appropriate for family housing, and none are rental units. Both of these issues have been identified as critical, especially in the core area. 7. Insufficient park/green space offered by the developer at a time existing parks are under increasing stress. 8. Unlike local developers whose development history is familiar to the city, we have limited knowledge of this developer and are curious about their history regarding such multi -million -dollar developments. We have also sent this to Councillor Chapman. Thanks, Page 448 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 3:22 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria Mr. Schneider This is a bunch of bull crap. How long do the citizens of Kitchener have to put up with this? This "project" will probably have Park and Victoria lanes reduced once again causing traffic jams and vehicles forced onto secondary streets such as Strange. We have endured all the construction on Victoria St and the Pink Elephant called the ION for the past 10 years. It is time for us to have a break. BUILD THIS 38 STORY PLUS MONSTROSITY IN YOUR BACKYARD!!!! Page 449 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:40 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Park St. & Victoria St. Development Hi Eric, Thank you for the wonderfully informative meeting tonight regarding the Park & Victoria development. I'm writing to provide my official comment to be included in the proposal. Overall, I am very impressed with the thought and consideration that went into the design of this building. I initially had concerns regarding the 0 setback, but after learning about the design of the building and the pedestrian focused approach I no longer have concerns with it. I feel that the materials and design chosen were thoughtful in terms of the look and feel for the city, access to the building (3 entrances), retail space, wind, etc. and I know it is going to really revitalize a very ugly corner of my neighbourhood. The wide walkways and corner plaza are particularly attractive and welcome features. Having said that - it's just too tall. Period. It's my understanding that the city is already exceeding its targets for building housing for our growing population and while I completely agree that we need more housing in Kitchener I don't see the need for this particular building to be so tall given its location. No amount of "it is stepping down towards Park and there's a railroad right there to transition" can justify the density and height that is being proposed. I'm not saying it needs to be 20 stories, but even 30 would be more fitting than 38. The fact that so few units are 2 bedroom units and there are no 3 bedroom units included is also concerning to me. With the rising cost of housing in Ontario and single family homes becoming increasingly out of reach, families who choose to or need to live downtown need comfortable places to live. Our housing strategy cannot be one that forces families to move further and further outside of downtown areas if we truly want to achieve a diverse and welcoming city. Additionally, I wish the traffic study would have included Jubilee, and would encourage an additional traffic study to be done that includes it. This street runs through a busy park, has multiple pedestrian controlled crossings, and also has a lot of animal crossing. I frequently need to stop my car to wait for geese or ducks to cross the road. This can cause a little bit of a "traffic jam" and with increased traffic I worry about safety and congestion through the park. As a resident on Victoria St. very close to the site being proposed, I am not concerned with the increase of traffic on my street. Yes it's hard to get out of my driveway already, but I know regardless of this proposal traffic will increase as it's a main thoroughfare. But I am concerned about increased traffic through the park! In summary, I am in nearly full support of this proposal and I am excited for the changes. This proposal is well thought out, but too tall, and I urge the city to consider reducing the height of the building and further investigating traffic impacts of the proposal. Thank you! On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 3:59 PM Thank you Eric! I will be there. . _ ...ote: On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 3:51 PM Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hello, Page 450 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:49 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Shadows Attachments: Whole year 2 slow.mp4 I'm convinced that the developer's shadow studies are incorrect. At no point during the year can the proposed towers cast a shadow on Henry Street as shown in their study. Attached please find my own study for your consideration. Sincerely, Page 451 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:02 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria Development Hi Eric, I wanted to share my main concern with you for the Victoria and Park project after attending the neighborhood meeting tonight. Traffic on Jubilee and small side streets around Victoria Park, such as Theresa Street where I live, are already busy. Some cars use these side streets as short cuts to beat traffic to Victoria and speed down these side streets. During construction of the Garment condos, cars have been speeding down Theresa Street at 80+ km/hr and even going the wrong way down the one way, which has led to physical altercations between neighbours and cars speeding down the street. Jubilee and Victoria Park side streets are family friendly, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. There will inevitably be a large increase in the use of Jubilee and therefore more cars taking shortcuts. In the meeting they mentioned they did not do a traffic analysis for Jubilee or any streets around Victoria Park. There absolutely needs to be traffic analysis through and around Victoria Park as there will be increases to traffic flow through Victoria Park. The Victoria Park area needs to be a family and pedestrian friendly neighborhood. It should consist of a busy road or quick short cuts through the city that make it an unsafe place to live or visit. Potential changes to traffic flow through and around Victoria Park may be necessary to keep the Park and surrounding neighborhoods safe and family friendly. Thank you, Page 452 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 y:ju vm To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria @ Park development I received a postcard in my mailbox yesterday -just over 24 hours before the "neighbourhood meeting' to discuss the proposed three -tower development. I would preface my comments by saying I hardly consider this adequate notice. There is much to like about the specifics of this development - the renderings show an attractive building; the inclusion of indoor and outdoor bike parking; reduced parking spaces for automobiles, and infrastructure (whatever that means) for charging electric vehicles, and mixing commercial at ground level with residential above. The existing streetscape, particularly along Victoria, is nothing about which one would likely write home. My concern is that this adds substantially to the density of this portion of Kitchener. While I support the principle of densification, I feel it has its limits, and there have been quite a few high rise buildings built and currently under construction that are dramatically increasing the density. What we lack is any increase in the green space. Victoria Park is a lovely park, but it is the only park of its kind in the city, and pre -pandemic, it was clearly at capacity on any nice summer day. We have already added many more residential units over the last two years (including those still under construction) for which the nearest green space of any appreciable size is Victoria Park. My understanding is that the official plan does not include the extent of densification we are now seeing, and it is time to think hard about the other amenities required to make the core of Kitchener a liveable space. A significant part of the zoning change and official plan amendment they are requesting is for increasing the density well beyond what the plan allows. There is a reason for the limits that were put in place and it should be respected. Page 453 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 1:16 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Victoria & Park Development Hey Eric, I was able to attend the meeting tonight, where I again voiced my support. I noticed today that the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force report was released. While I haven't read through the whole report as it is a tad late and I just finished up work, I did look at the main ideas proposed - most of which would support this development and many others proposed in the city. I'm sure you and your team will be having a good read through it in the coming days and hopefully it can be used as further support to increase density in Kitchener's urban core. All the best, Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2022, at 4:02 PIN Hi Eric, Thanks for passing this along - looking forward to it Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2022, at 3:49 PM, Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: am writing to inform you of the Neighbourhood Meeting for this development application. Physical postcards have been mailed out, here is a copy of the digital version with the meeting details. Page 454 of 520 Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneiders(,, kitchener.ca From I> Sent: Friday, November 26, 202111:11 AM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria & Park Development Hello Eric, I am writing to you regarding the proposed development at Victoria & Park. As a young professional who is hoping to continue to live in the Kitchener area, this development is welcomed as I believe we need more housing and further densification within the downtown core. I don't want to get priced out of my hometown, and I hope we can continue to build supply at an equivalent rate of the increase in demand in this city in order to allow young folk like myself the opportunity to continue to live here. Thank you, Page 455 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 4:38 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Towers at Park and Victoria Eric: I attended the online meeting yesterday about the proposed development at Park and Victoria, which I found very well organized and very informative, and I want to register some comments: I think the proposed height is excessive. It will look out of place compared to the surrounding and the transition to the adjacent neighborhood will be too abrupt. There are also serious concerns about shadows cast on other buildings which would in part be addressed by lowering the height of the development. There were some very good questions about affordability. Unless the city and the region, working together, put in place a plan to ensure that some units will be affordable, they simply won't be, as was noted by one of the participants. The form this can take is open for debate, one option could be to let the region buy some of the units to offer as affordable rentals. This lack of affordability and having only 1 and 2 bedroom units will change the demographics of the downtown. Proposed developments should include larger units (3 bedroom) suitable for young families, so that there continues to be a varied demographic mix downtown. The parking ratio is insufficient. There is a push to move people away from cars, and this is very good, but people still do use cars and, as pointed out by one of the participants, the experience with existing buildings is that parking space is generally under -estimated. Finally (and this is not specific to this particular building) one of these new towers in the downtown area should include a full supermarket at the ground floor (as is done in some buildings in Toronto). People in the building will have little supermarket choices except, well, supermarkets outside of the downtown area, which means they will need to drive there, which of course goes against the benefits of intensification. Thanks and best regards, Kitchener Page 456 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:24 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria development proposal I don't see any beauty in these towers. I see a money grab by developers. I see the same disregard for zoning bylaws as other developers in our city ... though our dictatorial Premier is set to abolish zoning bylaws in his quest to fill his crony's pockets. I see investments, not homes. I see tokenism in the low number of affordable units, although they are still out of reach to many. I see the same fatuous comments about viability, when it is evident by the six storey condos and apartments on King, that giant sized behemoths are not necessary for viability. This frenzy to strike while the iron's hot has left many of us in a depressed state. The greed is disgusting. The specious arguments about intensification, when we've already exceeded targets, is insulting. I've lately found myself thinking, with palpable relief, that at least I'm closer to the end of my life, and I won't have to see the worst of this disastrous rampage on our city. Something's terribly wrong when city planners create such a mess that citizens begin to think death isn't such a bad thing. It's pretty pathetic that the thirst for money has been so brutal on its citizens. The lack of thoughtfulness, philanthropy, generosity, sensitivity, creativity, has left many of us in a state of profound helplessness and depression. I don't have much hope that the planners give a damn about us. The meetings feel like an empty ritual, and those opposed feel unjustly targeted and belittled by those who think this is progress. What's that saying?..he knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I just wanted to express my thoughts, because I don't know if I have the stomach to fight against this overwhelming, destructive tide. Kitchener Sent from my iPhone Page 457 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:42 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria Attachments: ShadowStudiesFinal_Feb2012.pdf Hi Eric and Debbie, After the neighbourhood information meeting last week, I was really disheartened to hear some of the answers from the City staff and developers consultants. It appears that Victoria Park and the Victoria Park Neighbourhood are being given very little consideration in terms of assessing the adverse impacts of a building of this size: - The traffic study did not include Jubilee Drive, which is getting busier and busier every year and it currently treated as a throughway despite being in the middle of a park - The traffic study did not include the one way roads (Henry and Theresa Streets), which will very likely incur more traffic. Especially Theresa Street as it lines up with the entrance to the development along Victoria. - The shadow standards used by the City will allow properties south of Victoria Street in the Victoria Park neighbourhood to be in the shadow of the development for up to 5 hours a day on September 21, without considering that an impact. Jurisdictions such as Mississauga limit the number of hours that a shadow from a tall building can be on a neighbouring property. (see their standard attached). - When asked about transition and compatibility, the planner from the City that responded focused on the proximity to Cherry Park neighbourhood, and completely neglected to consider the Victoria Park neighbourhood to the South. - Why can't best practices like the 45 -degree angular plane be applied here? How are almost 40 storey towers within 60 meters of a conservation neighbourhood (an area that will not upzone) reflective of well considered and holistic planning policies. - I'm perplexed as to why the recommendations in the urban guideline for mixed use corridors, which has a specific section of the Victoria Street corridor can be largely ignored other than to call the development a gateway. That guideline says: Built Form: Maintain existing built form pattern (2-4 storey form) in corridor with opportunities for mid -rise form (4-8 storeys) on large redevelopment sites. Building Design: Attention to detail and scale. Emphasis on ground floor articulation, compatible rooflines and similar building materials. Balance residential scale with industrial character. I understand that the core is growing, but all the planning documents that I have read did lead me to anticipate that a development of this scale would be planned at this location. Given its: proximity to low rise homes it's zoning it's being earmarked as a mixed-use corridor, + and the fact that it is on the edge (or on some maps not even included in) the urban growth zone, Page 458 of 520 I understand that this parcel of land was meant to be transitional. Transitional in purpose, scale, massing and height. Yet it is larger than the high rises located in prime locations within the urban growth zone to the east that are further from low rise residential areas. Overall, although I appreciate the attention to detail and the design of the proposed development, I think it simply too big for the proposed location. Something like 144 Park in Waterloo, would be much more appropriate as a transitional building at this location. I also wonder if it is wise to allow such a large building to be built at this location before the City forms it's plans for the Bramm yards. (which I hope will be turned into a park), but will be greatly affected by the shadows of this development, which could limit redevelopment possibilities on this parcel of land. Kind Regards, Page 459 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:25 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Cherry Park/Victoria Park — 92-110 Park & 146-162 Victoria Good Afternoon. I took part of an interesting meeting regarding the development proposed for Cherry Park/Victoria park area. It is great that there is so much interest in our city from neighboring cities, but this city needs to get it right. These buildings will not only impact our neighbourhoods and city today, but 50, even 100, years down the road. Proposals this huge, need to be considered carefully, to ensure the impact it will be making, will be a good one. The most obvious issue with this proposal is not the height itself, but the shadow study that comes with it. The shadow study spreads for blocks. With everything rising in todays world, how can we remove the right to the owners/tenants, in any building, to grow their own vegetables to produce their own food. How can we remove the right for daylight for 5 hours, when there is limited time in the year when people enjoy being outside, getting vitamin D, exercise, and not to mention affecting one's mental health, and the ability for them to reduce their grocery. The other thing worrisome is the amount of traffic this will bring to that area. To go from King, all the way down to Victoria, to the park, is ridiculous with the amount of stoplights and pedestrians using that artery. There is no quick in and out of that area, and adding that many people, cars, bikes, in that small area is a recipe for disaster. No amount of bonusing for this project will ever make up for what this city will be losing. I hope you consider the people who will have to live with what gets approved, for the rest of the project's direction, and beyond. Kind Regards Life long resident of Kitchener Page 460 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 4:58 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Neighbourhood meeting on Feb. 8 for proposed development at Victoria & Park Eric, I appreciated having the chance to learn more about the proposed development at Victoria and Park at the Zoom meeting on Feb. 8. 1 am not sure what the next steps in the process are, but as a resident in the area, I wanted to share the following three concerns and questions: 1. If I understood correctly, the traffic impact study for this project did not consider the impact on Park/Jubilee southwest of Victoria. Having travelled through this intersection for the past several years taking children to and from school in the morning and afternoon, I have observed that there is a significant connection between the traffic on Park on both sides of Victoria. Will this gap in the traffic impact study be addressed? 2. There was frequent mention of the appropriateness of the height of the proposed buildings given the nature of the land to the northwest and northeast of the property, and the anticipated uses to the southwest. It seems like the biggest impact is actually to the properties to the southeast (i.e. on the other side of Victoria). Why is this not a factor? It seems, for example, that the neighbouring Garment Street development provides a model for addressing this concern by having the largest towers toward the back of the property rather than right on Victoria. 3. In response to concerns about green space, the proximity to both Victoria and Cherry Parks was noted. Given that Victoria Park in particular is already very busy (if not over -busy) and several thousand new residents will be living in the area before this particular development opens, this strikes me as an inadequate response. What studies or standards does the city utilize to determine adequate park space for new developments? I am concerned that we are not being more proactive about the need for green spaces, and not leveraging current interest in new private sector development downtown to address future public space needs. Thank you for your engagement with the community. Page 461 of 520 Eric Schneider From: <s@scottmcquarrie.com> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 8:58 PM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park development Hello Eric and Debbie, I hope all is well I wanted to send you some more thoughts about the Victoria and Park st development. Considerable concerns resulting in some extra research, and some considerable objections from the community consultation. (Please forgive the delay, put some extra research into the plans, and neighbouring jurisdictions requirements.) As the FSR (11.6) is the concern for neighbouring residents that leads to the following: • As I see in the plans the tower floorplates (floor area of each storey in the towers as I understand it) are proposed at 770, 850 and 850 square metres. In Toronto they aim for a maximum of 750 square metres. This makes the towers less bulky and reduces shadow impacts. There may also be an impact to wind levels at the street level. Surprising to think there would be a possibility that we would approve this design and it falls out of Canadas largest cities restrictions • At further examination there is above ground parking proposed — it is my understanding that Toronto doesn't even support that. And have that in conjunction with the zero setbacks and excessive FSR — the development seems rather self serving. Cheaper above ground parking, no set backs and high FSR seems to be a rather greedy attitude. From the call: • It was very concerning to me that when the .54 parking spaces was brought up by a neighbouring condo resident the architect simply replied "if the mafket demands it — we will simply build more parking spaces" Concerning on many levels, but biggest being the main justification to this development is public transit use, and limited traffic. Concerning. • The developer is "committed to building better neighbourhoods". It is hard to believe that he is not just in this for the business. (Which I understand). But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt — why can't he commit to it? Commit funds to: Green space and parks, a day care space, library, dog park? dog walking floor in his building? Why is there no commitment on his part? I would encourage the city to be negotiating for some of them at bare minimum. Given the developers commitment to neighbourhood — I would be interested to hear what community projects he has supported In hls other developments. Affordable housing, community initiatives, green space etc. • It was simply laughable that the one gentlemen mentioned that there would only be a road closure for a "week" — we all know that is ridieulou5. I am not sure what he would accomplish In a week;. The closures will be considerable. Again a lack of commitment. Simply not building trust with the community. • Considerable traffic concerns — and the woman that represented the developer simply passed the buck back to the city saying that "we are waiting to hear back from the city. Seems rather convenient and again doesn't instil trust. Along with the traffic study was done during the covid lockdown. How can this not be a concern? • Zero transition to the neighbouring neighbourhoods (2 floors on Park and Victoria) to 38 floors Page 462 of 520 Full disclosure — I reached out to a good friend of mine who is a planner who works for the city fo Toronto. Some of the above questions and considerations he brought to my attention. But also found it pretty surprising that Toronto would even question this developments proposed density and plan. Thanks for your consideration and time to read this. I will be sure to give you a call this week once you have had some time to review things thanks again Page 463 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 7:41 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] New proposed hirises Victoria and park I think this is a wonderful development for the park area and downtown Page 464 of 520 Reduce the heights of the Victoria and Park Tower development To: City of Kitchener The proposed Victoria and Park towers are a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a 4 to 6 storey podium located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. Residents have until December 6th to have their concerns heard. Don't know what do write? Check out some example letters to get you started: https:Hdocs.google.com/document/d/17pxc7OkTuFOBEVOjiz3GHK5NDMOtHEzC/edit?usp=sharing &ouid=111132142338214838875&rtpof=true&sd=true Comments to be sent to: City of Kitchener Eric Schneider, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x7843 Eric.Schneider@Kitchener.ca 0 Additional Contacts Ward 9 City Councillor Debbie Chapman 519.741.2798 Debbie.chapman@kitchener.ca0 Applicant Kevin Muir, GSP Group 519.569.8883 Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Why is this important? The proposed the Victoria and Park towers are a multi -tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a 4 to 6 storey podium located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest building in the Kitchener -Waterloo Region is DTK Condos is 39 storeys[1]. DTK Condos, however, is located in the core of downtown, and is not located near any low rise residential areas. In contrast, the Victoria and Park towers would place two towers of similar heights as well as a third tall tower on a heavily trafficked corner surrounded by heritage low rise neighbourhoods. This development will cast large shadows on the surrounding Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods (see Urban Design Report for details), and would place additional stress on an already heavily trafficked corner at the gates of Victoria Park. There are existing towers near Victoria Park (a summary is provided below), but these are generally not near low rise homes, or are much shorter where they are near low rise homes. The height of the proposed Victoria and Park Towers are much taller than any existing tower near Victoria Park, 20-32 storeys higher! Several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South since 2016. Each development getting progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street toward established heritage neighbourhoods. -[� Victoria - 19 storeys - completed in 2016 [1] -Une Hundred Tower A - 21 storeys - completed in 2020 [1] -Une Hundred Tower B - 17 storeys - completed in 2020 [1] -garment St Condos - 28 storeys - complete in 2021 [1] Page 465 of 520 The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria. For example, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, at 38 storeys would be like both the towers at the One Hundred development staked on top of each other. Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to surrounding properties, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. The following are suggested to reduce the impacts to nearby residents: - Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid -rise scale (5-10 storeys), or possibly a small high- rise such as the Iron Horse towers (15 storeys), which is set next to historical homes on Schneider Street. - Increasing the set back of any towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. - Stepping back towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Residents have until December 6th to have their concerns heard (see contact and example letter above). ----------------------------------------------------------- Urban Design Report https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenData/AMANDADataSets/637062_Urban%2ODesign%2OBri ef.pdf Height of existings buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place I - 7 storeys [2] 205 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place II - 9 storeys [3] 241 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys [4] 243 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 - 6 storeys [4] Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers - 15 storeys [5] 310 Queen Street South - Victoria Park Towers - 14 storeys [6] 290 Queen Street South - Victoria Place Retirement Community - 7 storeys [4] 214 Queen Street South - the York - 6 storeys [4] South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen - 6 storeys [8] 307 Queen Street South - Bread and Roses - 6 storeys [7] 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers - 17 storeys [1] Sources: 1. https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List-of - of_ tallest buildings_in_the Waterloo_ Reg ional_Municipality 2. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-i 3. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually 5. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. https://www.breadandroses.coop/ 8. https:Hbarracondos.com/about-barra/ Residents have until December 6th to have their concerns heard. Don't know what to write? Please see example letters which you can send as is or amend with your specific concerns about the proposed development. In addition the petition will be sent directly to the City of Kitchener on December 6th, 2021. Page 466 of 520 �AGSP 1-11`01-4D May 17, 2022 City of Kitchener Planning Division, 6th Floor 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Attn: Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Dear Mr. Schneider: SHAPING GREAT COMMUNITIES File No: 19272 RE: Supplementary Commentary and Updated Community Benefits Proposal Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/11N/ES Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/017/V/ES 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street Further to the submission of the above -noted applications in September 2021 and ongoing discussions and correspondence with City staff, please accept the following supplementary commentary and updated Community Benefits Proposal as it relates to the provision of amenity space, enhanced streetscape, vehicular and bicycle parking, and affordable housing. The final proposed development is a multi -tower, mixed-use redevelopment with ground floor commercial floor space along the Victoria Street South and a portion of the Park Street frontage. The proposed development includes the following: A total of three (3) high -residential towers with a total of 1,124 dwelling units and maximum Floor Space Ratio ("FSR") of 11.6 as follows: o Tower A (eastern edge of site) with a total building height of 25 -storeys (82.8 metres) and 253 dwelling units o Tower B (northwest portion of site) with a total building height of 36 -storeys (115.25 metres) and 440 dwelling units o Tower C (southwest portion of site) with a total building height of 38 -storeys (121.75 metres) and 411 dwelling units A 6 -storey podium connecting the three towers including the following: 0 1,750 m2 of retail and commercial space along Victoria Street South and a portion of Park Street o Lobbies, mail rooms, loading and delivery areas for each of the residential towers on the ground floor as well as common private amenity space for residents o Bicycle and vehicular parking o Residential dwelling units atop the 2nd floor PLANNING I URBAN DESIGN I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 72 Victoria Street South, Suite 201, Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y9 519 569 8883 162 Locke Street South, Suite 200, Hamilton, ON L8P 4A9 905 572 7477 gspgroup.ca Page 467 of 520 Private outdoor amenity space atop the 6 -storey podium A large outdoor commercial plaza located at the southwest corner of the site (base of Tower C) with enhanced streetscape for commercial and retail spaces along Victoria Street South and Park Street • Outdoor amenity space and landscape features associated with principal entrance from Park Street A copy of the final proposed development concept has been appended to this correspondence. The initial application for Zoning By-law Amendment proposed Special Provision Regulations to reflect the specifics of the proposed development concept. The following provides a summary of the original Special Provision Regulations as requested and confirmation of the updated Special Provision Regulations: 0 Indicates modified from original application The proposed development will comply with Section 5.8 (a) of Zoning By-law 2019-051, which requires a minimum of 20 percent of the parking spaces required for multiple dwellings to be designed to permit the future installation of electrical vehicle supply equipment. Furthermore, the proposed development will include the immediate provision of nine (9) electrical vehicle charging stations and nine (9) electrical bicycle charging stations. The proposed development will also include the immediate provision of three (3) designated car share vehicle sparking spaces for residents. Finally, the proposed development will include unbundled parking. The Planning Justification Report (dated August 2021) included a summary of proposed community benefits in support of the proposed increase in maximum FSR. Since the initial submission of the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the Community Benefits Proposal has been refined to include the following: GSP Group 1 2 Page 468 of 520 Special Regulation Minimum front yard setback, Park Street Original 0.0 metres 0.0 metres Minimum exterior yard setback, Victoria Street South 0.0 metres 0.0 metres Maximum building height 122 metres 122 metres Maximum number of storeys 38 storeys 38 storeys Maximum Floor Space Ratio 11.6 11.6 Minimum amount of non-residential gross floor area 1,500 m2 1,750 m2 Minimum ground floor street line fagade width as a percent of the width of the abutting street 70% 70% Minimum percent street line fagade openings 70% 70% Minimum required rate of parking space for multiple dwellings 0.54 0.60 Minimum required rate of Class A bicycling park space for multiple dwellings 0.50 0.60 0 Indicates modified from original application The proposed development will comply with Section 5.8 (a) of Zoning By-law 2019-051, which requires a minimum of 20 percent of the parking spaces required for multiple dwellings to be designed to permit the future installation of electrical vehicle supply equipment. Furthermore, the proposed development will include the immediate provision of nine (9) electrical vehicle charging stations and nine (9) electrical bicycle charging stations. The proposed development will also include the immediate provision of three (3) designated car share vehicle sparking spaces for residents. Finally, the proposed development will include unbundled parking. The Planning Justification Report (dated August 2021) included a summary of proposed community benefits in support of the proposed increase in maximum FSR. Since the initial submission of the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the Community Benefits Proposal has been refined to include the following: GSP Group 1 2 Page 468 of 520 1. Affordable housinci contribution: The Owner is committing to a financial contribution of $500,000 to a non-profit, local affordable housing provider to support the development of off-site affordable housing projects in Kitchener. This contribution is meant to complement charitable funding commitments by other donors to local affordable housing providers so it may be combined with government matching and/or subsidy programs for the provision of City-wide affordable housing. 2. Public amenity space: The Owner is providing ground floor amenity space at the base of Tower C that will be available for use by the public as well as patrons of the future ground floor retail and commercial units. The proposed public outdoor plaza space is approximately 265 m2 in size and can be accessed from sidewalks along Park Street and Victoria Street South. While the use or design of this space has not been finalized at this time, it may include public seating, landscape and outdoor amenity features, enhanced surface treatments and appropriate weather screening. In addition to the public outdoor plaza, the Owner intends to provide enhanced streetscapes along Victoria Street South and a portion of Park Street. While the use and design of the streetscape has not been finalized at this time, it may include superior surface treatments, mature street trees (where possible), public seating, hardscape features and enhanced landscape beds and planters. It is important to note that in addition to the provision of public ground -level amenity space and enhanced streetscapes, the proposed development provides for a broad range of both outdoor and indoor private amenity space for use by future residents, alleviating pressures on surrounding public amenity and recreational spaces. This private amenity space includes the following: Approximately 1,655 m2 of outdoor amenity space, including a terrace atop 6 -floor podium to be accessed by all residents. While the use and design of the space has not been finalized at this time, it may include active and passive areas for socializing and entertaining, enhanced surface treatments, landscape areas (planting beds and large planters) and the use of appropriate furniture and screening to mitigate potential wind impacts. Approximately 1,455 m2 of indoor amenity space to be accessed by all residents. While the design of the indoor amenity space has not been finalized, it will include gathering and amenity spaces for residents in a range of sizes to serve a number of social, entertaining, administrative and community purposes. GSP Group 1 3 Page 469 of 520 3. Amenity space for neicihbourhood association(s): The Owner is committing to provide for the use of a meeting room or other comparable amenity space by the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association and/or the Cherry Park Association for a maximum of 10 hours per month based on the same terms and conditions applicable to future residents of the building. Provisions for use of such amenity space by Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association and/or the Cherry Park Association will be included as part of future condominium corporation documents. 4. Unit type/number of bedrooms: The Owner is committing to provide thirty (30) three-bedroom units as part of initial site development and construction, including thirteen (13) traditional three-bedroom units and seventeen (17) two-bedroom and one -bedroom units available for purchase that could be combined, designed and constructed as three-bedroom units. 5. Affordable housina units: The Owner is committing to provide dwelling units on-site as part of the proposed development that would meet the definition of affordable home ownership as per the Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS") and Regional Official Plan ("ROP"). The proposed development includes a total of 1,124 residential units comprised of bachelor, one -bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. The dwelling units will range in size from 376 ft2 to 1,098 ft2 with a considerable number of units sized that could be purchased at a price considered affordable ownership as per the PPS and ROP, based on current market rates (currently, 50 dwellings meet this definition). As noted above, the Owner has also committed to a significant financial contribution to a local affordable housing provider to ensure the effective provision and long-term availability and management of affordable rental housing. I trust that the above -noted supplementary commentary is sufficient for your review and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require anything further. Sincerely, GSP Group Inc. Kristen Barisdale, MCIP, RPP Associate, Senior Planner GSP Group 1 4 Page 470 of 520 cc. Steven Ruse and Shmuel Zimmerman, DOV Capital GSP Group 1 5 Page 471 of 520 C:) � o a r Ue LmJ a nFo o %1N0- U ., R e 9 x 5 � Z Al Lu LLI J LL W � w LU LL, U) Q W Q. '71 1 Ii MI ffil oil i Q Q O N w Uw Ca Q wa- a � F 0 z Y ¢ K ¢ za O 0 U <zz� > ¢ 0 U W ¢ F > W O > Q W Er WJ UWz D- z = =cn~w0 Q LL g a ¢0wOzpz z�O ~a 00 z z FL F-- FL� V O¢ w U)O zz J pzOzv��U»Ua— � 0 33 �LL F aa- OJz¢z'¢7oQ'oF�W�zoc�f ¢rSov 0IL0LL0 m 2'zxwzz>�O>Q>Q 0 a¢ zW Q O 0 L > LLp>, Z a DwOzZO0ce (D 000uWiLUWLU Z W z—- J z z z z H X ¢zz OMNOO�Z YLL'm SCO �C`JKKK W W W W J W W- D D J J J J J O a Q a M F F m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z oo���wwwwwiiaa0 0¢» »wwww U U(n C7 (7JJ JJJ FF LLOcn�Z W OOm 0]O� SCC LL' CC O� OOH NM7�1J (O I� W O)�O�NMO� MaO�N M O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U_Q O�Wtt�❑d 5❑❑WJymUw>KiWaam=3moZ❑zQmrn�moWQ❑umWOia�zgQ❑zwrm�aZm�NvM� °YUz❑��hO�"w�3°aN�o`❑UwwQmrWZ yn„mj' Oars��z56a❑�Uz LLU�' (=20WK"7 (a��U"3wmw`2a❑3r�mO�Uy7- m 2a(�WoQmUQ"7' LLOZ0� LL =z❑K❑ttU¢�W❑jw_,ittoO�zQZ¢an LLzow�ZOZOtt°?�NWUz ittoOQ�tanr mUmrN OzV E E wE O❑x�0mMr WZyN222aiOU-n d(OZ�-v6zr❑2mA�1i 2mW¢W>¢a�' �mUamo❑aUOzJ vwmrF?Qrrme �mQ❑j ZDO mza�pWWtt)F zU� mmr M�mazO-a zO-m UzOfiaJ ar rye zWzK2 -O ¢O ooc w�0 a ¢ mm12 w 11 LL �Oma W � °00¢ W. j V5 V5 '05 > °mM O ¢¢ dzUzJ ow ¢ ji �¢ ID 2t O❑ p z mm 81WOE(7 UU wa ma(D wO d Ks ? O Om¢OwW QO O - ?O ZJ m r U ❑ ¢ U ❑ K NN NrN m K CL O WO U a m m � m ro � ro O U z z y r z-�UwUzt°OtiaZKQamOOUK�iKaQW�❑Wmaj a ,0N zaQr Irra M M ~ r 1332115 WWb218 O O _ O I� O J L 1332115 N21Yd � Z¢ J W � h Z _ a � Oa O rU > �Z W d J ❑> m ¢¢ ❑ a0 z z w U d K Z ¢¢ dzUzJ ow ¢ ji �¢ ID 2t O❑ p z mm 81WOE(7 UU wa ma(D wO d Ks ? O Om¢OwW QO O - ?O ZJ m r U ❑ ¢ U ❑ K NN NrN m K CL O WO U a m m � m ro � ro O z-�UwUzt°OtiaZKQamOOUK�iKaQW�❑Wmaj zaQr U ❑ ¢ U ❑ K NN NrN m K CL O WO U a m m � m ro � ro O yO° OO C, °FF cOmS L O (�UOQaz3HZ❑❑¢❑7 ZmOO�w�wFJoom32>wZ oW❑'a❑JW w��UWUNa�¢>0Wwe<QUU�w(ZOy m°¢a Ud ° Q ttrzwgwj�aQ m O zO <w 0 d mW oda O C)J 60 0 0 0 Ul �- z-�UwUzt°OtiaZKQamOOUK�iKaQW�❑Wmaj zaQr - oEo 77 oLA - N - = = 2E - --- 1332JiS WWb'2i8 J• T �--- Ua .,.2 EkE EE O 00o t z e _ U o — - W ail Z J/ _ E a_ N , �L0'z �_j EU) -, QCD2 ?Zo�O Q z Q E S2 $ W d' WO W00 M m ' O>Q U!LL U) 0md n0.NQ H 04 � e4. i w z Q (if rnco � Lo W I �U' a • ¢ 1 J - IIIL ,I;i!i;iy ........ „I,Ijljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljlj�jjj® ............. •� W nn y r O H 9 B 3 m n m i O u z1 m I . tn M 11111l111111'�1 '1'1111111111 EL N51'3535"W 38.100 wb �ONI�1V1� O U ' aNnoHo AAO'aV) dA2iOlS 9 I WS�6b' AANAWb'? opino n_1 LU 95 O in LUE M OJ 6) 1 j AI I N A VIV booalno z O 00o ' w Y p w F LZ U Z W j Of Of Ez Z)ro--_ W W ~� � a0a- CDC z al �L0'z �_j EU) -, QCD2 ?Zo�O Q z Q H $ W d' WO W00 M m ' O>Q U!LL U) 0md n0.NQ H 04 W i w z Q (if rnco � Lo W I �U' a LU 95 O in LUE M OJ 6) 1 j AI I N A VIV booalno T_ E U o W M rn MIN 44 LL ?_.t O O W W z L�uj o 0 0 o Q Co FLU) o w E L v a 0(if U-) p OO o F CO N Lm 0 0 o r J O O L,2 z O 00o Q U Z S1mON � a0a- a b� co Q z Q W = z Z (D M M F F � T_ E U o W M rn MIN 44 LL ?_.t O O W W z L�uj o 0 0 o Q Co FLU) o w E L v a 0(if U-) p OO o F CO N Lm 0 0 o r J O O L,2 00o IQ<Q U D U a � a0a- L Q z Q W = z Z (D M M F F � SOK O Q Nii�•••••• �y E'E'] wOl 9`09V 9NIl ALTJ9dOMd L T_ E U o W M rn MIN 44 LL ?_.t O O W W z L�uj o 0 0 o Q Co FLU) o w E L v a 0(if U-) p OO o F CO N Lm 0 0 o r J O O L,2 Nii�•••••• • 1144 11 '•S'Slr Vfff' hhh ��� IIIL ,I;i!i;iy ........ „I,Ijljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljljlj�jjj® ............. •� nn y 11111111 m I . tn 11111l111111'�1 '1'1111111111 �d1.1.1 I I'I'I�I'111 III 1111111 I IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII 1,1,1,1,1111,1,111,1,1 1'1,1'1'111'1'111'111 III � Ittt � ttt r`r ttt �� rt r\r\ rt r\r\ tt. �� �� ' I1I1� ,jl 11 I II 1• ISI �� �6 11111111111'll�ll!31 I IIIIIIIYiI �� nn 111 plq� 1 �l11�1 ��t h' I h. jlj r ISI • ■I !!IIID • ®I1Ijy I�3'�Y �t\t\\IIryFI III III, I� • • 111'.: 11111 I,jlli�l.11�lilili ,.1.�I�I�I '1'111'1'1 rz':%:hM1A I'II I'II . I ■ I • �• 11111 I 1:11,111®®�i�pp ®III' I III ,III '�'�' I,�I�'1,�'�' ,I,I IIII k lil�l� 1111 IIII "1'I"11111���RI�11 shyy Lo Lo II II 711 111'7114 II '1I�,111 II11 IIII • 11'1'1'1'1 1111111QII� Ip11I�'7CiI � �I � I 'Ijl I 111, 11 I'I'I I'll 9 11�1411�I�I' I I11I ,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 1111�I�I�I1 Igo"" I "I • 1, 11 , 1 I,I ,11111 I 11141 I I I I 11111 1 71 I I II, I 1111'I'I�i��Mill I I I I 'I' I 1'111 i I'I'I 1'dl'I I'I'I' IIII' I I I I 111 I I 1111 I I I'I'I III ,' ' 1 I III11 �■Ilntl I yII • i�iii�i +�i11111aIlillld•Irl.i.l.l.l.l 11111 1144'144'144114'1' lrl•161. 44'1441114'144'14'1! Illrl•I lrl.ld.Hill.i! - • • 41 1i' 41' r11111.1.1 ,.I.I.I.IjI�■� I r61•Immmmmm I 111011®� I • ■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ��■■■■■■o_ ■■■11■'� _ I a - - S �l� � o�rNo jv C7 O a nME 2Q2Q I s U p I a - - S �l� 1 o�rNo VV O1 d0 dVVW C7 O - - and 1 VV O1 d0 dVVW O ax i o�m ss� o a w,p N 3RIB ---- ¢w - am 1� OI - d_A1 wS'S r }8.100_ moues VV O1 d0 dVVW O ax i o�m ss� o a w,p N - 1� - d_A1 wS'S _ z Z p U Q sr > w z a�> o '� z m a �ON V L J z x M p r C7 U �p 1332US WWV219 ¢ w ww> LL U � wmx --_�oH_ff cl O a y w1'35'35"W7.620"Ws� ¢ p F o rc WU ¢n Zwo�� z z - and LL Z 0 0 0 a� Wtt�9 aN I z Q�Q W y° z ' w LL d 0- F -J wl H w d Q Z O Q =1K z a a f w w d a W i ti 1 d L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — d w p W a ¢ 1 o m p N w sol a O W m O Z ml N51'3535"W 36.100 ab - - - -Pi & SEwOl 3�09V 3NIl ALa3dOad 3NIl ALa3dOad ' z _ _ �I T"�— E a I— m - - �I o - - --- - - — - - w o �F CL U) 1 U) 1 - U� o mwe'I �wR Q o a +m — 6011 U N N51'39 '05"W ° 9.195 wb.0 w n _ WEE ____________________________ �a m` -s_ - - _— 1 o I N �p1 —_ --_ - - --m- _ II a Na eaiva1 " J I 1 1 I - WE _- I T y E Imo' zt 1 17 61 o J Q o b d w0'£ la z z I _ O ti3 o L T=� IG�uwi I a i lam W E iVun W m � l wssz 0 / 1 i U (If z Q i m AL7)3d021d P al MEAS N51'39'O5"W ' PI 1 13.74fi 94.5691 m 13.716 13.411 3NIl MEAS 14.057 U IT 133HiS MVd z a O N O M ol �1� Ve [m] o N gg a a '�' ab�E ^w 0 SS F0�rNo a1332J1S WWV2J8 N - N51'35'35"W 7.620 Ej z m- I ai E I I ¢ z W z ant 0 0 0 I W W H - F -jU a U w Z FI J D J JJ W wl H w ILa0a Nl>- ¢ z ¢ =1K dl W'L------------- W v 1 d d a O a I wJ O of d � a m1 I N51'3535"W 31I1AL?J3d.ld � O1S 6 i 1 .132J � LU i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 tL �Iyd1N aT W wQ aa1 E a wE'Lw CD y a a w " — — a W m— �� Q Q d �I— T'n.b - E N51'39'05"W 9.195 -- ,- - — 1N 1� 1 l l l l l l l l l I l l l l 1'TI 1 tl �I 1,1 A32JO1S l I 71 1� o � m � J r ¢ I 16z Z 0 0 w m W I — IG 1n Lo �E r� w i p 1 � / 5 y 7� y 0 e_ O 7 acv 9 ALM3d021d P137-1,— N51'39'OS"W 3NIl ' 13.74fi 94.5691 . 13.411 14.057MEAS p 133HiS MVd z J z M a o N ° o Q > 0 J �" LL d D Z �ON� Ue [m] L ra 6¢99� a F° w q a a 1332i1S WAV4Jg a ® - _N51'35'35"W W d d _ " ws s m 7.620 } Q LL Z an� w Wp00 z - m¢0'¢ W �I W J a J J w l w LL 4 0 a a0a �� a a L------------- 0- w ° O of 0 Baa ml I N51'3535"W 31I1AL?J3d.ld 11 11 A32iOlS L I , - vv v1 Iv Iv vv Iv �1 I I 1v 11 vI v v vv v v 1 I yd1N�� w I I 4o w � — - o — -_— , NU a , we L --_ LU �I N Z Z U W 00 ' z a Eke ws�� n ao al Tdy m Q -- 1 \ I\ I III \ I \ 1\ I\ I i TI 1 \1 \I 1,1 s 1= 1 , M I I Iw o � m � J x I 16z z O w m W � �W = I o J m Q 1 M / o y a 7� y o � e_ O co (if 7 3NIl ALM3d021d � oxo P1317-1,— N51'39'05"W ' 13.74fi 94.5691 M 13.411 14.05EAS 7 U 133HiS MVd z ° o Q > p mo. LL ¢ � o �1'ON +„ Z 0 N U e [m g M W 0 ! f]�a F° a a 1332i1S WWb4i8 - N- N51'35'35"W p7.620E U U Z9 --- Wwo�a nl I Z * ay_s a N LP LL� W 000 m¢0'¢ W -J LL � W W w l w LL d - N I} ¢oz¢ aI L — — — — — — — — — — — — — W IL 0 w°Oa of a wa ml I N 51'35SE, }8.100 a� b 31I1AL?J3d.ld I� "l3NOlS L I I Iw �� � � I I° I yalN�� W _ I& aul Yll6 W WE'LL❑ u)� wl _ z2 J' W d— z Z' <m X a� = we'z c'� cD °J we'L c = ® m w EL W m ' Y �- �`ws�t wss, F - Imo^ ao "� 60 O¢ - H - J N51'39'05"W 9.195 1 �N 1� — �1 5 - 1 I o � m � J r Q I 16z z O w CD m W � m l = I J Wo co (If1 - o 5 a 5. - il3�IOlS J 9 3NIl ALM3d021d 7 alM a N51'39'05"W ' 13.746 94.5691 MEAS 13.716 S 3 p!4.057 L) 133HiS MVd 1332i1S WWV2i8 °I Q and ' w Lu JI Z - J 1 LL 1 of ml —N51'3535"W ------ I --�-- 38.100 zLLz LU 000 Q Q U LL CL d O d L — — — Q z Q— — — — — — a � -w A3TJOlS 9 a o N51'39�05"W 3NIl ALM3d021d P1 16 �I},411 P14.O57A 13.716 _ _ I 3Ni� ,3rliN3o z N O O ~ I. w "am W J � ¢O Q doNvo 13.746 94.5691 U 133HiS MVd z 51� 4 N N rII� a o O O V^eLm]1 L Q O '� a�+�p�b�p M 1+� o Y W i o2y7Np 1332i1S WWV2i8 °I Q and ' w Lu JI Z - J 1 LL 1 of ml —N51'3535"W ------ I --�-- 38.100 zLLz LU 000 Q Q U LL CL d O d L — — — Q z Q— — — — — — a � -w A3TJOlS 9 a o N51'39�05"W 3NIl ALM3d021d P1 16 �I},411 P14.O57A 13.716 _ _ I 3Ni� ,3rliN3o z N O O ~ I. w "am W J � ¢O Q doNvo 13.746 94.5691 U 133HiS MVd 1332J1S WWV2J8 z ba> o K O d' _ N ryy[� M ^ zwz 000 � )<0 LL d 0 d Q Z Q 3NIl TJ3dOTJd �� IU N A32J 1S I. to 0 = to C we zz =i U b 1 w I I II W =L o , o b b b b o 0� 11=i U - )%32JO1S 9 co -- - - - - - IF- -------- - F- yam- -, - 1 s _ AA OlS l _ �J3 w o � Q J m o —m J a -,I L O o — A32JO1S 9 m N51'39,05"W 3NIl ALM3d021d P11 16 �I},411 P14.057" 3.716 _ _ I 3N1� ,3aiN3o E 0 0 0 m z n O w ISN Lo W o f 0� QO o a m / U) (If A3�IO1S b o ------ --M--- 13.746 94.5691 133HiS MVd z P� wm 1332J1S WWV2J8 MIQa and uj �I Q LU 1 d 1 of ml N51'35'35"W 38.100 Zwz 000 I � LL 0— Q z Q L— — — — — — — — — — — — — 3NIl TJ3dOTJd I� I� �� A32J 1S L 2 J z ,132JO1S 9 n_1 �32JOiOl —1 ' <a� O O =-,L 7--=, - - 0 W ON � N VvLmJ CCJJ wl� zl a O w9'9E w WE z9 L � w.0 J-0 H N - - CL alo pU�-w z P� wm 1332J1S WWV2J8 MIQa and uj �I Q LU 1 d 1 of ml N51'35'35"W 38.100 Zwz 000 I � LL 0— Q z Q L— — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 ° A32JOlS 9 m N51 39'05"W 3NIl ALM3d021d P111�I},411 P14.OS7 6A 3.716 I 3N1� ,3aiN3o - Q I. w - w o i �Q L: O m / H O 77�/�5 Fli Q 713�1O1S b o u,�,a 0 13.746 94.5691 U 133HiS MVd 3NIl TJ3dOTJd I� I� �� A32J 1S L ' ,132JO1S 9 n_1 �32JOiOl —1 ' <a� =-,L 7--=, - - 0 wl� zl W Q . .. ..Q }W 5:" w9'9E w WE z9 L � w.0 J-0 H N - - CL alo pU�-w N 1 o X04 O._ r O w �L wl u m o °' O - W €: -- - - - - o�- — 1 ~ L, / -- - -- - w ° - 1 I - w -- - A3 O1S l L m LU F Q W N® o � E - - U) _ o E N _ w F w6'bE - � m J wE'2 o W d J 0 ° A32JOlS 9 m N51 39'05"W 3NIl ALM3d021d P111�I},411 P14.OS7 6A 3.716 I 3N1� ,3aiN3o - Q I. w - w o i �Q L: O m / H O 77�/�5 Fli Q 713�1O1S b o u,�,a 0 13.746 94.5691 U 133HiS MVd 1332J1S WWV2J8 z LL z LLI 000 �L LL CL L--- -- -- - - - - 3NIl ALTJ3dOTJd �� I� A32J 1S L I� A32Jd1S b 1 - ' wCL y C O - 6 - w- w "L 5 - O LLJ - I I o I I I I �I=� O U -- - - - - - 5F r 1 �� J 1 a z 1 1 — 32JOlS L = LU LU - LU m Q N o _ o A32JO1S 9 m N51'39'05"W 3NIl ALM3d021d P1 MEAs �I},411 '140 '57' 13.716 -w - e U) a z wJ Q - 0 Iwz z d �=o s O J w .� "*+., a x N M woe I - - -Irr� —U) In UeLmJ IR- J a o � O W LO CCJJJ r ¢ orNo W �2 �J 0 ..• 1332J1S WWV2J8 z LL z LLI 000 �L LL CL L--- -- -- - - - - 3NIl ALTJ3dOTJd �� I� A32J 1S L I� A32Jd1S b 1 - ' wCL y C O - 6 - w- w "L 5 - O LLJ - I I o I I I I �I=� O U -- - - - - - 5F r 1 �� J 1 a z 1 1 — 32JOlS L = LU LU - LU m Q N o _ o A32JO1S 9 m N51'39'05"W 3NIl ALM3d021d P1 MEAs �I},411 '140 '57' 13.716 -w - e U) a wJ Q 0 0 0 Iwz z d O woe I w —U) In — 1, „1 I' I I" LO W �J 0 13.746 94.5691 133HiS MVd z �1; w J a a 1sON nF o o� .Vo M a fNo ..d` 4 U a N Z d N W M o N517620 "W O sb20 a w a co MI �I W p o orn — of W' � wss fora- c ml a — mI N5p135 35\W 36.100 a� Pi & SE . .. . .. � � � � _ _ _ =0l 3W09V 3 ALa3dOad — — — — — — _ _ �3NIl ALFJ dOad wZ NN 11\ I A l A I 1 / 1 I\ I \ l \ I 1/ 1/ o I I E lMna3W4VON wU'Uj ltlIlN3al83a I l I l �� y al _ � I \ I \ • / 1 / 1 / \ l 1 I \ I 1 I ISN rcs 1 _ hi cE 1 'N IwN iso z S33VdS `JNM1Vd A3 6� r = I I ,,�mI of Nadw Iw/Iw/\w/\w/\wl\w 11>I\wl lw/1 /\ l\ l\ I\ 11 I\ 11 /1 _I 1 / 1 / \ l \ l \ I \.f \wl \.f 1 I \ I \ l \ I 1 / 1 / — J 1/ 1/ s I \ I \ l\ I 1 l 1/ \/ 1/ \ I \ I s E 11 11 \l 11 \I \I \1 \J Il II \1 11 \I \I \l \l 11 11 Z wE'L wE'L l\ I\ /1 /1 /\ l\ I\ N51'39'05"W — l \ I \ / 1 / 1 / \ / 1 I \ I \ l \ I \ / 1 / 1 / \ / 1 I \ I \ Qw - 0 � E p - l A IA 11 IA-- v l v l v I v I v l 1/ v I v I v 1/ v v WEL r 1 —' M [77 m h n �vIvlv11/1/v11/vIvIvlv11/1/1/1/vIvIvlv11/1/1/1/vIvIvlv11/1/ j5 i,"�a1yy '3NIiua3doad l `'9 a1s1 3.716As N51'39'05"W ' N 13.74fi 94.569 13.411 4.057� a w o z O 73735 7W 0 m a Q _–_- 1 x7.620 1 / 1 /\ l\ l\ I\ 11 I \ I\ 11 I\ 11 / 1 1/ 1/I'M/ l\ l\ I\ I\ l \ I\ I\ l\ 1 1/ I/ wl 1 / 1 / \ l 1 / \ I \ I \ l AeHO, \ I \ I \ l \ I 1 / 1 / 1/ 1/ \l 1/ \I \I \l \I \I \/ \/ 1/ 1/ 11 l 1 l 1 l 1 Q Q l 1 l 1 l 1 l 1 11 11 � 1 w – E M a�> 1 /1 / \ l\ l 1 / 1 / \ / \ \ lull, kk vl 1/ / vI 1/ 1/ W J w£L l\ I\ /1 /1 /\ l\ I\ I\ l\ I\ /1 n II II I\ I\ v / 1/ 1 / v/ 1 I v I v l v I v / 1/ 1 / v/ 1 I v I v /1 qON n;' Fo a 0 M � wss fora- c W' J ml zI �1 N5p ]5 ]5\W -----------Pi _ _ NI] uFF d0ad _ _ _ — _ _ — – 73735 7W 0 m a Q _–_- 1 x7.620 1 / 1 /\ l\ l\ I\ 11 I \ I\ 11 I\ 11 / 1 1/ 1/I'M/ l\ l\ I\ I\ l \ I\ I\ l\ 1 1/ I/ wl 1 / 1 / \ l 1 / \ I \ I \ l AeHO, \ I \ I \ l \ I 1 / 1 / 1/ 1/ \l 1/ \I \I \l \I \I \/ \/ 1/ 1/ 11 l 1 l 1 l 1 Q Q l 1 l 1 l 1 l 1 11 11 � 1 w – E M 1 /1 / \ l\ l 1 / 1 / \ / \ \ lull, kk vl 1/ / vI 1/ 1/ w£L l\ I\ /1 /1 /\ l\ I\ I\ l\ I\ /1 n II II I\ I\ v / 1/ 1 / v/ 1 I v I v l v I v / 1/ 1 / v/ 1 I v I v /1 /1 � wss fora- c W' J ml zI �1 N5p ]5 ]5\W -----------Pi 36.100 --� — a1 _ _ NI] uFF d0ad _ _ _ — _ _ — – 1/ �1 1 �V I ,V 1 �V I �V I ,V 1 �V I �V I �1 / �1 �1 / �V I �V 1 �V I �V V I A L A I 1 1 1 1 A lel / A I A I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 A I A I A I A I 1 1 I/ 1 1 I/ A I A I A I A 1 1 1 1 v v v / 1/ 1/ 1/ 'fl v v v 1/ 1 1/ 1 v v v I,/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ v v I,/ I,/ I �3NIi ua3doad– – — – – 13.746 3.716 57 a1AS N51'39'OS"W ' N 94.569 13.411 14.0 _–_- 1 WE Lm 1 / 1 /\ l\ l\ I\ 11 I \ I\ 11 I\ 11 / 1 1/ 1/I'M/ l\ l\ I\ I\ l \ I\ I\ l\ 1 1/ I/ wl 1 / 1 / \ l 1 / \ I \ I \ l AeHO, \ I \ I \ l \ I 1 / 1 / 1/ 1/ \l 1/ \I \I \l \I \I \/ \/ 1/ 1/ 11 l 1 l 1 l 1 Q Q l 1 l 1 l 1 l 1 11 11 � 1 w – E M 1 /1 / \ l\ l 1 / 1 / \ / \ \ lull, kk vl 1/ / vI 1/ 1/ w£L l\ I\ /1 /1 /\ l\ I\ I\ l\ I\ /1 n II II I\ I\ v / 1/ 1 / v/ 1 I v I v l v I v / 1/ 1 / v/ 1 I v I v /1 /1 1/ �1 1 �V I ,V 1 �V I �V I ,V 1 �V I �V I �1 / �1 �1 / �V I �V 1 �V I �V V I A L A I 1 1 1 1 A lel / A I A I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 A I A I A I A I 1 1 I/ 1 1 I/ A I A I A I A 1 1 1 1 v v v / 1/ 1/ 1/ 'fl v v v 1/ 1 1/ 1 v v v I,/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ v v I,/ I,/ I �3NIi ua3doad– – — – – 13.746 3.716 57 a1AS N51'39'OS"W ' N 94.569 13.411 14.0 F!C:, 1 II 1 R 1 —,--II 'Ir II !1 1 u.7u.�u.�n.■u.�l.qu � � �� � ��� �—� IIS I I I ii iiii I I I I I I I I I I �!■ .l m I� ■I■ is IN is I■AI■I■AI■I■I■I■I■isI■I■I■1.101■ 1 1 II 1 ■ ■ ■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ ■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ ■ Im II■ .1 I■1 I■. It It It It It It It It ■ It It It It It It It It It It It It It I� II■ .I In l■F. I2 In I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. In I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Ia !Ion .1 L1 .E !� I� I. I. I. I� I. I. I. I. I. I. I� I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I� I■ .1 L1 .. � I 1 �II�II�II�II�IILII�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�I�II�II�II�II�II�ll�ll�l�il�ll�ll�l� 1 !1 !1 11 !1 it II II !1 it II it it II !1 !1 i1 11 II i1 11 11 !1 i1 II ■ 11 11 11 11— !1 !1 !1 11 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 II !1 i1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 ■ !1 !1 N !1 !1 !1 !1 11 11 it it it it it it it !1 it !1 11 !1 i1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 ! 11 !1 ■ !1 ■1 'I Illiili�ii ■ J .1.. 1n1 i1 In I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. ,.•' ,n^ 1 I III II 1 o r I�I�II�I�II�I�II ■ ii ii iiii i� ii ii is ;;r I�II�II�II�II�II�II. 12-12, II■ Ill Irl I■. I■ .1 Irl IMF r J. - I. I. I. I. I. I. I. �.n I�II�II�II�II�II�II I�II�II�II�II�II�II�II■ I I I I I 1 I I III■ .'N I�II�II�II�II�II�II�II.' I' 1' I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IMF INN II■ .1 I■1 I■. Jl �I n_ m Z'_ Im = I I I'I .1 I.1 IE'�' 11 I■ rl Irl I■ Sr IIII I i iI iI 1wo III �I I III I it III m .II Swill m IInn IL1n JI n■ M1 Irl I■Y II■ .lmin 1 II 1 R 1 —,--II 'Ir II !1 1 u.7u.�u.�n.■u.�l.qu � � �� � ��� �—� IIS I I I ii iiii I I I I I I I I I I �!■ .l m I� ■I■ is IN is I■AI■I■AI■I■I■I■I■isI■I■I■1.101■ 1 1 II 1 ■ ■ ■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ ■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■ ■ Im II■ .1 I■1 I■. It It It It It It It It ■ It It It It It It It It It It It It It I� II■ .I In l■F. I2 In I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. In I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Ia !Ion .1 L1 .E !� I� I. I. I. I� I. I. I. I. I. I. I� I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I� I■ .1 L1 .. � I 1 �II�II�II�II�IILII�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�I�II�II�II�II�II�ll�ll�l�il�ll�ll�l� 1 !1 !1 11 !1 it II II !1 it II it it II !1 !1 i1 11 II i1 11 11 !1 i1 II ■ 11 11 11 11— !1 !1 !1 11 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 II !1 i1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 ■ !1 !1 N !1 !1 !1 !1 11 11 it it it it it it it !1 it !1 11 !1 i1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 ! 11 !1 ■ !1 ■1 'I Illiili�ii ■ 1 I 1 I I I t I I I I t I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 �II�It IV It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It iii I ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii I ii NO ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ion ii ii in ii in ii �IImm Imm Imm Imm 1mm 1mm Imm Imm I-Imm Imm Imm Im ISm Imm Imm Imm Imm Im I-Imm Imm Imm Imm Imm Im IN lm IN 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- I I I- I I I■ I N I m IN I.1 I.1 I.1 I.1 I.. 1 I■I I■I I■1 I■1 I■■ 1 mml it Imm1 Imm1 ioi 1— .1 I■.I I■.11 I.■11 .- IM ISI 1�1 Imm1 Imm1Ill lmi Iml Ion ■I■I■1 I■1 I■. -- ■I Z I■1 L1 L. -- ii iii iii ii', iii MMM 'i a I I 'II @_ :1 I:I I:1, I:', iii MMM :1 I:I I.l, I:', 111 MOM ■I I.I■1 I■1 I■. -- .I I.I I.1 I.1 I.. -- ■I IP! 1■1 I■1 I■. -- •e•e e•e•e e�!�!i!IAi!ieIAi!ie•e•i Ie 11 !e !1 EI !1 Ii !® !e !i !i !i !i 1■ ii e �e a �e �e a �e �® �e i® �® lle !pe 9e ■ape 1 1 1 1 1 oil 11 ii ii i� iG i I Iii l�! i I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I l i l l l l l l l l l l l � l l � I III■ Ills ■1 I■1 ■■ ■1 I■1 I■. ■ ■ I 1 1 ii iii iii `h 1 I IN III it .I it it it .I it - I■I 1■1 1■1 I■1 I■. 1 I■1 I.1■1 I■1 I■■ Al I■I I01 I■1 I■. 1 I j I I I — I 1 I 1 I I I t I I I I t I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 �II�It IV It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It It iii I ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii I ii NO ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ion ii ii in ii in ii �IImm Imm Imm Imm 1mm 1mm Imm Imm I-Imm Imm Imm Im ISm Imm Imm Imm Imm Im I-Imm Imm Imm Imm Imm Im IN lm IN 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- I I I- I I I■ I N I m IN I.1 I.1 I.1 I.1 I.. 1 I■I I■I I■1 I■1 I■■ 1 mml it Imm1 Imm1 ioi 1— .1 I■.I I■.11 I.■11 .- IM ISI 1�1 Imm1 Imm1Ill lmi Iml Ion ■I■I■1 I■1 I■. -- ■I Z I■1 L1 L. -- ii iii iii ii', iii MMM 'i a I I 'II @_ :1 I:I I:1, I:', iii MMM :1 I:I I.l, I:', 111 MOM ■I I.I■1 I■1 I■. -- .I I.I I.1 I.1 I.. -- ■I IP! 1■1 I■1 I■. -- I I.n In In In _o_ i11 I.II 111 111 111 _�_ LI' A II .'1 = :II_II_II_II. I .I I.1 I.1 I.1 I.. 111_ 111_II_II_II1 I LI 10 L1 L1 1.1 111_ IN- 11, IN- \.. IN- Ill \,. \.. \.. \.. IN- IN- 1, IN.. \.. \�.. \.. � � 11I I.1 111 111 111 1111_ IW,I'I11, 1 I11, 1,1'IW, !No No 1m, I_IW, 11 I1,!No N I1, I'm1'm1NN M 1.0i� I� it J I I mi III II III i in' i� i� i1, i� i1, i� i� i� i� i� i� I= �= i� i� i� i� i� iINN 1� .1 I.I I.1 I.1 1.1 111 _ _ lis �.I I.I I.1 I.11.1 1.1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 jii�illillil: I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 I.1 111 111 111 1.1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 111 I.I 111 111 I.. 111 ■.J.J.J.J,.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J .J.J.i.J.J.J.J.J,. 1■1_II_II_II_II_II_II_II_II_II_I_II_II_II_II_II_II_II_II_II_II_II. 1 ■I_IMI_II_IMI_II_II_II_II_I_II_II_II_II�II_II�II_II_II_II_II. II I1 II I ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I1I I.1 111 111 111 111_ I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I.1 I.I. 1 1 I.1 111 111_ i. 1 11 A it I I _ is in is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is— i�lu_I�_I�_I�_I�_IN I_ IN 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m IN IN IN I_ 1m 1m 1m 1m 1m IN IN IN It I_III_II_II_II_II_II I� III�I II II II II1 I II II III, I I I I I 1 1 1 11 In 1n In is In In 21 is In In In Im 1n In IIt Imm It Imm It Imm Itm It I_ It It It It It I_ It It ImmImm IN NN IIIN I.ImLI inl111.l1.. _ __� � LI L1 _ LI I.1 111 111 111 MOM _ � 111 111 111 111 111 _ _ 111 :I 111 111 111 1.1 No _ � 111 111 111 1.1 _ _ � 111 111 111 111 _ _ MEMO!! I.I �1I 1 � 111 11111111 111 � 111 111 111 111 In _ _ � 111 111 111 111 111 _ _ E 1111 111 111 11 ME ■1I1 111 111 I.1 1.1 _ I■mmi I 11 1 1 I 11 1.I .1 I11 I.1 1...1 =Miss _ 1 _ _ 111 111 111 11 MME ■ ■ ■ Ir_ I I ' I I ' IYI NTMI I.E. I®' • / 11 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I ;� `�,�� I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ I■I i i i i i i i i i i i i 1 i i i i i l� Ilii i I I I i I I I I I 1 I I 1 i I I i =„ ■I ■I I■I I■I I�mo1 01 I1 I01I I■II ■ MMMO II� I■I In In Em. I■' -.a I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I■1■I In I■1 �� � I�1 �ii�iiiiii�n�ll�ll�ll�n�ll�u�ll�ll�I�ll�ll�ll�n�ll�ll �.� I■I �II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�I�II�II�II�II�II�II �I■I ■I III IIn In SM� ■I I��1 I■t �� - ■■I�1 Il E1 Mo1o1 IO I■t 0� .� I■nl�u�n�n�n�u�u�n�u�ui�� .I iii ii iii ii ii i� 11111�11�11�11�11�11�11�11�11�11�1� I■I IIS I� I�� I� I� I� I■ 111�1�11�11�11�11�11�11�11�11�1� I■I m.�o�w�u�u�u�ii iii�ii�ii��i��i�ii�ii�ii�ii�ii�i� I■1 11 II II..... ! — 1111111111111111:11M.1110M 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I I I II I�II�II�II1� I�II�II�III� I�II� I�II� ISI I�1 1 I I I I�II� I�1 I�1 I Elm. I�1 I�1im1 I ., III I"I", I INN 101 1 i 1 I IRI IIIm., m Im1111 Im.1SI IM..,SI "II II 1 i I I I in Iim IN1 IN1 I�II� 111 INN N 1 � 11 II 1 I.I INN III■ INNI■1 1 1! IN l 1i101 1! In 0 z E �5 yy S i Q oY n m n m N ry N � LLss os _r spa z = .•i. .�'ONCQ M 11 a U F O IrrI `�g,p p � wse iZL g ��I! li�' it it it i' it it it it it it it it it it it � I� II IS II I■ II• Imm In II II IIm 1mm I■ Imm Imm I■ I= I� It 11 It I■ It It I� It It It It I■ I� It I■ I� I� Im Im Im I■ lm!l 1 I I I I 1 I I ■ 1 1 l------------uiuioiui ■ O U W r �=o oma a.s� C7 W Z nv 2Q2Q Fi� c s U Fo p � wse iZL g ��I! li�' it it it i' it it it it it it it it it it it � I� II IS II I■ II• Imm In II II IIm 1mm I■ Imm Imm I■ I= I� It 11 It I■ It It I� It It It It I■ I� It I■ I� I� Im Im Im I■ lm!l 1 I I I I 1 I I ■ 1 1 l------------uiuioiui ■ O U W r C7 W Z � r 5 Q OO W 1 IIIIIIII 1= �• -� ��� ...... ..... ... II I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 11 II 11 II 11 11 ■I li 7 il��llll■ I I I I I I I � �mn I I I I I I I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i■ ii��llll■ I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I ■ W1111■ I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ■ �llll■ I I I I I I i ■ II��IIII■ I I I I I I i ■ IIIII■ I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I ■ ii��1111��J �J iJIJiJ iJJ 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I ■ ii��1111nllnllnllnllnllnllnll■ 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 i I 1 I I I ■ _. Il��llllnllnlinllnllnllnllnll■ • i � i � i � i � � • � i � i � i ■ Il=wmilllnmil IllMI MlllMI Mllll 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I ■ Ic..n.nununononunonunllnununonununununununununununonunllnunonun -- n.nununononunonunononunonununununununununununonunllnunonun .. � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ ■■ ■■ ■�Jn,I■■_ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IMI�i�� In In II. I. I. I. I. I. 1. I. 1. I. 1. I. 1. I. In In I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. In I. I. I. I. 1. I. I. I. I. I. I. 1- - 1111■ 1 i� i. i. i. i� i. i. i� i. i� i. i� i� i. i. i. i. NINE 1111 JIiJ Jli l JIIJuJIi.l I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. 1. I. I. I _- Illl�ll�ll�ll�llnllnllnllnl. I� I,� I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I� I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I� I� I� I� I� I� � == Illlnllnllnllnllnll�llnll�ll. IIIlnllnllnllnllnllnllnllnll-111. 7 l l l l l l l l 7 l l l l l l l l l l l l l 7 ll�n■ 1111lII�IIlII�II�II�IIlII�II■ 111. ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 � =- 1111■ l l l � 7111- ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 IIIII. I I I I111� ■ I I. I I I I 1 I ■ I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 ■_ 11_ 1 1 IIIII■ I I I 1III� a a ala is la la la la lana ial aiana lana lana lana is _ 1 1 IIIII■ I - i_ I I "' "� 1■ I� 1� ■� I� 1..� 1 1 IIIII■ I 'I i I' I I I r' 1 1 IIIII■ I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I III 7 1 1 IIIII■ I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I V 1 1 IIIII■ I- I I I I 3 1 1 Illlln J J JI II InoJuJ � 1 1 Illllnllnllnll II Inllnll■ 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 Illllnll�llnll�l�l�lnllnll■ 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 9 -� n- 1 1 IIIIInllnllnllnllnllnllnllnll■ i : I I I I I I I I I : i i I i I i I i I Y mo 1 1 IIIIInIInIInIInIInIIn11n11n11- 14.1nq-1-.- 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I j iC=1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N.I. %■ r NII■ 1.■ IN R }, NII. 1 NI ■1 a{ ,� ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ ._ ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ _ ,_ ,_ ._ ,_ �,. Win■ Iw Iw �'' : = I MR �- ■ 1 ■ i ■ ■ i i ■ ■ i - — �' ■ 1 1 � ■ ■ ■ � ■ ■ 1 �wP C it i •x ��( 3 �II��I�I��II��II�" V �A > 1 � SII. _ Mui N m I®l®1I1Ili II 1I 111111 If 111111I�I�mImImflm SII. _ _ l IN If IN INE _ gg / If If If If If If If IN If If If If If If If IN N If �II� fI NNI w�l�l�/inN 1 . l� if If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If IN IN If �II� Iw I! I� I� 1� 1� I� 1� I� IN Iw 1611" If If If If If If IN If If If If m w IN If IN �- C9L R /• r—I — i i i i i i G G G G ME Ill %G IN ii ii 3i iA -A I --R G G in in in iG L L_ L _L -&-&-&-L L L &7&-L L -L L L --d. SIR P 1 y -■i If Mid Ili 11 1n 1n It Il n Im 11 11 m 11 m In will m I� "laima mai�I�i�iMii 1n 111M 1s1-I.M 121-2 1. 1�M- 1Z a 1. M. I -CI -CI. I- � i }- 1�plyi�i111�i�116r11:d11:�i�:di1:d11:�11:.116111:�i�:.II��r11:rI�Lr��L.dLd:.IL.IIVV:.IILI� NIS_I�_n��l�ihl�l�l�hl�ll�ll�l�l�ll�l �n�ll�ll�n�l 1 — �ltttlltttLLLlLLLLLLLL 1 1 1d� 1 �1 �II�II�la�ll�n�n�11 �li�u�u�o�l��ll�■ all 1 1 i 1 1 \ ■ ■ \ ■ i� 1\ • in fi ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ ■ ■ ■ \ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1■ • I� 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �■ li I a a i i i . i■ oils I■ �Il r1 I i l i i i i i i i i i i i i i I■■ i iG I , 1 1 1 l ■ ■ ■ on ■ It on ■0 111 ■ ■ IN ■ I■ I -■i If Mid Ili 11 1n 1n It Il n Im 11 11 m 11 m In will m I� "laima mai�I�i�iMii 1n 111M 1s1-I.M 121-2 1. 1�M- 1Z a 1. M. I -CI -CI. I- � i }- 1�plyi�i111�i�116r11:d11:�i�:di1:d11:�11:.116111:�i�:.II��r11:rI�Lr��L.dLd:.IL.IIVV:.IILI� NIS_I�_n��l�ihl�l�l�hl�ll�ll�l�l�ll�l �n�ll�ll�n�l 1 — �ltttlltttLLLlLLLLLLLL ,meA a A - AwA ®L WFM& i W m