Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-356 - 95-101 Cedar St S - ZBA21/022/C/KA - St. Pola Group Inc.Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: August 8, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7987 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: July 15, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-356 SUBJECT: 95 - 101 Cedar Street South Official Plan Amendment Application OPA21/013/C/KA Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/022/C/KA St. Pola Group Inc. RECOMMENDATION: A. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA21/013/C/KA for St. Pola Group Inc. requesting a change to the Land Use Designation on the parcel of land specified and illustrated on Schedule `A', be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -2022-356 as Appendix "A", and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and B. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/022/C/KA for St. Pola Group Inc. be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" and "Map No. 1" attached to Report DSD -2022-356 as Appendix "B", and further C. That in accordance with Planning Act Regulation 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to this Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/022/C/KA. 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 subject lands located at 95-101 Cedar Street South. It is Planning staff's recommendation that the applications be approved. The proposed Amendments support the development of `missing middle' housing in a Major Transit Station Area. Community engagement included: o circulation of a notice postcard to residents and property owners within 240m of the subject site; o installation of billboard notice sign on the property; o a City -led Neighbourhood Meeting (March 29, 2022); o discussions and an on-site meeting with interested members of the public; *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 203 of 336 o a third notice of statutory public meeting postcard was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject site, as well as those who responded to the preliminary circulation; and, o notice of the public meeting was given in The Record on July 15, 2022. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: St Pola Group Inc. is seeking Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to build a stacked townhouse development (rental) containing 24 residential units. Staff recommends that the applications be approved. REPORT: The subject lands are located on Cedar Street South (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 below) and are comprised of three separate properties which are proposed to be consolidated for the purpose of redevelopment. Currently, 95 Cedar Street South is located behind 97 Cedar Street South as a landlocked parcel without frontage, which is a historic situation. The parcels currently contain 3 buildings which have been converted to two duplexes and a triplex and together there are seven dwelling units in the three buildings. The surrounding area includes a mix of residential land uses including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, low-rise multiples, and high-rise multiple dwellings. The lands are included in the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan and are located about 250 metres from the Kitchener Market ION Station. \f' WAGNER 'GREEN 1IGHLAND C'P fk COURTS ?ARK Fiaure 1 - Context Ma COMMEk1CAE AREA A _ \ COMM Rl AT A CAMERON H_IGHTS -\ C-ChrGIA11 INSMU711 lV�' ti KAUPMAN PARK �e -,­ 1. Context Map 95.101 Cedar St S Cay al KM1[TeRE! Region ar Wa .I. LEGEND �,— � Svbjed L>nds amOm RaOus I5 min Walking pim �j ueaa-Bruer Sus Rawo#F Sti rlinp 9tra Rouse #2 oq-. Sown hes Rouse 03 59dgE Caurtlenr3 Bus Route 96 _g Bvs Rome" Wabar Bus Rowe # -••••• ION Light Ram Transit Rause#301 Aue Atop 'CJ ION Slaw Trans Enke Rae 515 P4WL � � C C- yr. F?F U4r•w c Nnd�]OTI G ,H � ESIE. 10960 COMMERICAL AREA n ,' s.ye.URBAN DES. .tea//lMHBC ARC 95 — 101 Cedar Street South (from Plannina Justification Report. MHBC Plannina) Page 204 of 336 aCCURIL NO a AVEM PW9 LIC SCHPOL GROVE SCHDO v r, SY f WAGNER 'GREEN 1IGHLAND C'P fk COURTS ?ARK Fiaure 1 - Context Ma COMMEk1CAE AREA A _ \ COMM Rl AT A CAMERON H_IGHTS -\ C-ChrGIA11 INSMU711 lV�' ti KAUPMAN PARK �e -,­ 1. Context Map 95.101 Cedar St S Cay al KM1[TeRE! Region ar Wa .I. LEGEND �,— � Svbjed L>nds amOm RaOus I5 min Walking pim �j ueaa-Bruer Sus Rawo#F Sti rlinp 9tra Rouse #2 oq-. Sown hes Rouse 03 59dgE Caurtlenr3 Bus Route 96 _g Bvs Rome" Wabar Bus Rowe # -••••• ION Light Ram Transit Rause#301 Aue Atop 'CJ ION Slaw Trans Enke Rae 515 P4WL � � C C- yr. F?F U4r•w c Nnd�]OTI G ,H � ESIE. 10960 COMMERICAL AREA n ,' s.ye.URBAN DES. .tea//lMHBC ARC 95 — 101 Cedar Street South (from Plannina Justification Report. MHBC Plannina) Page 204 of 336 145o� � rx / � /\` /` / /``/ ^ /° Figure 2 - Parcel Fabric: 95.S78^1O1Cedar Street South -*wpm IL --4 Ri Photo 1 - 95-101 Cedar Street South from the north (December 24, 2021) IOC 147 Page 205 of 336 Photo 2 — 95-101 Cedar Street South from south (December 24, 202 1) Development Proposal: St. Pola Group Inc., is proposing to develop the site with a stacked townhouse development which includes 4 floors of dwelling units arranged in two sections, overlooking a raised internal amenity space, and 1 floor of partially below grade parking. The development is proposed to contain 24 dwelling units consisting of 8 one -bedroom, 8 two-bedroom and 8 three-bedroom units. Figure 2 — Rendering (showing front and north elevation) Page 206 of 336 Figure 3 — Rendering (showing rear and south elevation) Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications The subject applications seek to change the designation of the subject lands from `Low Rise Conservation' which permits single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, multiple dwellings to a maximum of three units, small lodging houses, and small residential care facilities to `Low Density Multiple Residential' with Special Policy Area No.8. The proposed designation would permit single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, multiple dwellings, lodging houses, and small residential care facilities. The Special Policy would permit a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.46 for a multiple dwelling having structured parking, a maximum of 115 dwelling units/hectare, and would limit the maximum number of storeys to four (4) with one (1) additional storey of partially below -grade parking. The applicant is seeking to change the zoning from `Residential Five Zone (R-5)' to `Residential Seven Zone (R-7)' with Special Regulation Provision 779R to implement the proposed development. Special Regulation Provision 779R includes the following site-specific provisions: a) a minimum lot width of 36 metres for a lot containing a multiple dwelling with more than 3 dwelling units. b) a maximum building height of 16 metres for a multiple dwelling which includes partially below -grade structured parking. c) a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.46 for a multiple dwelling which includes structured parking. d) a minimum front yard setback of: a. 3.0 metres for any portion of the building not exceeding 4.0 metres in height, b. 5.2 metres for any portion of a building exceeding 4.0 metres in height, and upper floor projections are permitted. Page 207 of 336 e) a minimum rear yard setback of 3.5 metres for any portion of a building not exceeding 3.0 metres in height. f) a minimum side yard setback along the northerly lot line of: a. 1.5 metres for any portion of a building not exceeding 9.0 metres in height, b. 3.0 metres for any portion of a building exceeding 9.0 metres in height. g) Dwelling units located on the ground floor are not required to have an exclusive use patio area. h) Stairs, access ramps and porches having height greater than 0.6 metres above finished grade level are permitted within the front yard and within 3.0 metres of a street line. i) That a "driveway visibility triangle" shall be measured from the point of intersection of a street line and the edge of a driveway 3 metres from the street line and 4.5 metres from the edge of the driveway. Planning Analysis: Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development, and sets out policies to consider in building strong healthy communities. The PPS is supportive of efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term and promotes compact and efficient development patterns that minimize land consumption and make efficient use of infrastructure. The PPS identifies settlement areas as the focus for growth and development. Policies indicate that land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land, and which are appropriate for and efficiently use the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available. Policies promote the accommodation of both affordable and market-based range of units and residential types, and development that supports active transportation and are transit supportive. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed applications are consistent with the PPS as they will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject property with a compact multiple residential development that is located within a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). No new public roads will be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff has confirmed there is capacity in existing infrastructure to support the proposed development. This proposal better utilizes the subject lands and increases the number of new purpose-built rental units. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), 2020 The Growth Plan provides policies for where and how to grow. The subject lands are located in the Built Up area and in a Major Transit Station Area. The plan identifies delineated built up areas as key focus areas for intensification to make efficient use of land and infrastructure to support transit viability and provide flexibility to capitalize on new economic and employment opportunities while ensuring the provision of a full range of housing options to accommodate a range of incomes and household sizes all as part of a complete community. Development in Major Transit Station Areas is intended to include a diverse mix of uses, including additional residential units, at an intensity that will support existing and planned transit service levels. A minimum density target of 160 people and jobs per hectare is required. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed applications are in conformity with the Growth Plan. The subject lands are in the delineated built up area and in a MTSA. The proposed redevelopment will make better use of existing and new infrastructure and helps to support the density targets of an Page 208 of 336 MTSA. The proposed land use change assists in contributing to a complete community by increasing the range of rental housing options and increasing choice in a neighbourhood within walking distance of commercial, employment, institutional, parks and other uses. 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 within the Urban Area and are identified as a Built Up Area in the ROP (Map 3a). Within the Urban Area, most of the Region's future growth will be directed to Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), Reurbanization Corridors, Major Local Nodes and Urban Designated Greenfield Areas. In general, these areas will be planned to create a more compact urban form with a greater mix of employment, housing, and services in close proximity to each other. The Region is currently undergoing a review of its Official Plan including the delineation of Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) boundaries, which have been endorsed by Regional Council. The subject lands are within the draft MTSA boundaries. ROP Policies guide the review of development applications in MTSA's in advance of policies being established in the City's Official Plan. In accordance with these policies the proposed development supports a more compact urban form within a comfortable walking distance of an ION station and in an area with a mix of land uses including food destinations, services, and amenities, fosters walkability, supports a high quality public realm, and supports active transportation. Further, 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. The proposed development will contribute to the creation of complete communities with a development pattern, density and land use that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, and supports the provision of housing. Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications (Attachment `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete, and healthy community. Urban Structure Element: Major Transit Station Area The OP establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. The subject lands are located within the designated Built -Up Area and are identified as a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) on Map 2 — Urban Structure of the 2014 Official Plan. More specifically, the site is within the Central Station Area and within 250 metres of the Kitchener Market ION Station. In accordance with Policy 3.C.2.17 of the OP, the planned function of the MTSAs is to allow development at 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. Lands within MTSAs may be considered as intensification areas or as part of a stable neighbourhood, and in either case development applications are permitted to be considered for new land uses. The subject site was identified as being in the stable residential neighbourhood in the PARTS Central Plan and in accordance with OP policy 3.C.2.22.b, development applications are required to have regard for the policies of Section 4 (Housing), 11 (Urban Design) and 12 (Cultural Heritage) of the Official Plan and are required to maintain the existing character and planned function of the stable area (see analysis under Proposed Amendment to the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan). Page 209 of 336 In accordance with Section 3.C.2.19 of the OP, the PARTS Central Plan has been adopted by Council, but has not been implemented through an OPA. The City is currently in the process of completing the Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) which is intended to implement the recommendations of the PARTS Plan through the creation of new Secondary Plans and implementing zoning. This work can be completed following the ROP Review which will include a final delineation of the MTSAs. Secondary Plans that are part of the 1994 OP remain in effect and any changes to the designation approved through consideration of this site-specific application will be carried forward to new secondary plan policies. While not yet in effect, staff have considered the proposed designations and policies included in the draft NPR policies for Cedar Hill. Most of the lands identified to be within stable residential neighbourhoods, including the subject lands, are proposed to be designated and zoned to generally recognize existing land uses and designations/zones. However, lands adjacent to the subject site, both to the north (existing townhouses at 87 Cedar St S) and to the east (fronting onto Madison Ave S) are currently designated Low Rise Multiple Residential and are proposed to be designated Medium Rise Residential. The current designation of adjacent lands permits low rise multiples to a maximum density of up to 0.6, and the proposed Medium Rise Residential designation would permit a density up to 2.0 and a height of about 8 storeys. The height and density of the proposed development would be permitted within the Medium Rise Residential designation that is recommended to be applied to neighbouring lands. Through the Neighbourhood Planning Review, staff are recommending that some intensification be permitted in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood on lands adjacent to the subject site, and of a slightly higher scale. Staff is of the opinion that in accordance with the analysis provided in this report that the proposed development will be compatible with both the existing low rise residential land uses, and would also be compatible should lands to the north and east be designated and zoned to permit Medium Rise Residential uses in the future. Existing Official Plan Designation The lands are designated Low Rise Conservation in the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, which forms part of the 1994 Official Plan. In accordance with s. 16 of the Official Plan, the land use policies and land use designations in the Secondary Plans contained in Part 3, Section 13 of the 1994 City of Kitchener Official Plan, as amended, continue to apply until such time as the Secondary Plans are reviewed and adopted as part of the 2014 Official Plan. Other policies of the Official Plan contained in sections A, B, C, E and F apply to the lands. Proposed Amendment to the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan The subject lands are currently designated as Low Rise Conservation which permits single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and triplexes. The applicant is proposing to change the designation to Low Density Multiple Residential with a new Special Policy Area. The proposed designation permits single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi- detached dwellings, and multiple dwellings up to a maximum FSR of 1.0 and 100 units/hectare. The number of units per hectare may exceed 100 provided the maximum FSR is 1.0. The OPA would add a new special policy to permit an FSR of 1.46, a maximum of 115 units per hectare, and a height limit of 5 storeys. The subject site was identified as being in the stable residential neighbourhood in the PARTS Central Plan and in accordance with OP policy 3.C.2.22.b, development applications are required to have regard for the policies of Section 4 (Housing), 11 (Urban Design) and 12 (Cultural Heritage) of the Official Plan and are required to maintain the existing character and planned function of the stable area. Stable residential neighbourhoods are not the focus for high levels of intensification, however intensification and redevelopment which are compatible with surrounding residential uses may be considered. The Cedar Hill neighbourhood can be characterized as being primarily residential, with a mix of low, medium, and high-density housing types of various building styles and ages. Streets are generally narrow, and most buildings address the street with porches and front Page 210 of 336 doors, which contribute to an intimate feel and pedestrian friendly streetscape. The planned function of a stable neighbourhood is to protect the elements which are valuable to the community as whole including the protection of heritage resources and architectural character, provision of places to live, and places to recreate (both public and private), as well as providing community and social connections, all contributing to a sense of place. Individual developments and buildings can enhance and support the function of a neighbourhood when they are thoughtfully designed and with a focus on compatibility. Housing: Housing policies of the OP direct staff to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure, and affordability to satisfy the varying needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed stacked townhouse development represents the `missing middle' that bridges the gap between low rise, low intensity dwellings, and high-rise towers. This form of housing is ground oriented with individual entrances. The proposed development includes a mix of unit sizes, including one-, two- and three-bedroom rental units, and while not required by the Building Code for this form of housing, there are proposed to be several accessible units. The rental units are not planned to be deeply affordable or subsidized, however will increase the number of units available on the property from 7 to 24. Section 4.C.1.8. and 4.C.1.9 of the OP outlines various matters that must be considered when special regulations are proposed to be added to the zoning by-law that will facilitate residential intensification. Special zoning regulations are further described in the following section and staff have considered the zoning regulations in consideration of the following applicable policies: • that new buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. • Front yard setbacks should be similar to adjacent properties. • New buildings should be sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and appropriate screening and/or buffering should be provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. • Development should not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. • Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering compatibility Staff is of the opinion that the proposed stacked townhouse development is compatible with the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood. Nearby lands contain a variety of dwelling types including single detached dwellings, some of which have been converted to duplexes and triplexes, low-, medium - and high-rise apartment buildings, and various forms of townhouses. The proposed stacked townhouse is appropriate in the neighbourhood context. The building has been designed to address the street, is pedestrian friendly, and positively contributes to the streetscape. The front yard setback of the building is similar to other dwellings along Cedar Street South and pedestrian connections provide access to the street helping to maintain and enhance the residential character of the streetscape. There are a variety of architectural styles existing in Cedar Hill. The proposed low-rise and medium -density development, with a contemporary style, is appropriate. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to refine elevations and materials through the detailed site plan review process. The proposed built form and building placement results in a building that will be compatible with surrounding development and residential land uses. The proposed side and rear yard setbacks establish an appropriate separation distance to neighbouring dwellings and balconies have been oriented away from the rear to reduce overlook and maintain privacy. A new fence is proposed Page 211 of 336 around the perimeter of the site which will help to protect privacy in rear yards, screen the parking area from view, and mitigate for head light glare. There is a generous landscape buffer along the rear lot line that will permit planting of larger canopy trees to help provide visual screening from upper storeys. A raised central courtyard will provide a shared private amenity space for future residents. Parking is provided in accordance with by-law requirements in a partially below grade parking structure, which is screened from the street through the building design. In consideration of the Housing policies, staff is of the opinion that the requested change in land use and zoning will permit a form of housing that is desirable and compatible with the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood. Urban Design Section 11 of the City's OP outlines policies with respect to urban design. To address these policies, the applicant has submitted an Urban Design Brief, and conceptual site plans, elevations, and renderings. This documentation has been reviewed and accepted by City Urban Design staff and will be implemented through the subsequent Site Plan Review process. In accordance with Urban Design Policies, staff is of the opinion that the site design provides for a high-quality public realm, safe site circulation for all modes of transportation, and that site servicing components are functional and screened from view from the public realm. The development will enhance pedestrian usability, respect, and reinforce human scale, create an attractive streetscape, and complements and contributes to the character of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood. Through the detailed site plan control process, staff will ensure that appropriate landscaping will be installed to enhance the building and streetscape, and lighting will be provided to maintain safe and appropriate light levels which minimize light spill onto neighbouring properties and are dark sky compliant. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to review the detailed elevations and materials, in order to ensure implementation of the proposed built form and high standard of building design. Cultural Heritage In consideration of the policies of Section 12 of the Official Plan (Cultural Heritage Resources) staff offer the following. The subject properties are located within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) as identified in the 2014 Kitchener CHL Study. The properties municipally addressed as 97 and 101 Cedar Street South were identified as properties of specific CHL interest given the contribution they make to the viewshed from the top of Cedar Hill. The view atop Cedar Hill looking southwest affords an unobstructed view for several kilometres toward the City's countryside and well beyond the limits of the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood. These properties, however, are not protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was not required as the subject lands are not designated. Instead, staff requested a section within the Urban Design Brief commenting on potential impacts to the identified views from the top of the hill and how they should be mitigated. Heritage Planning Staff have reviewed the Urban Design brief that was submitted in support of these applications. The Urban Design Brief concluded that: • The proposed development respects the orientation, setback, and design of the buildings in the neighborhood, and provides a contemporary but compatible development in the neighborhood. • The original design does not adversely impact the views from Cedar Street. Initially the building was setback 6.5 metres from the street. However, after considering staff comments and comments from the public, the applicant has revised the design and has shifted the building 1.3 metres closer to the street, to 5.2 metres (with upper storeys permitted to project up to 3.95 metres). Furthermore, the revised design also has an inclusion of doors and stairs entrances along the Cedar Street entrance to improve the pedestrian scale of the development and make it more consistent with the adjacent developments. An updated viewshed analysis was conducted to Page 212 of 336 ensure that the revisions would not have an adverse impact on the viewshed at the top of Cedar Hill and staff are satisfied that the difference in setback will not have an adverse impact on the view along Cedar Street. In accordance with policies contained in section 12 of the Official Plan, Heritage Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed zoning by-law setback regulations will conserve and protect the views from Cedar Hill as identified in the 2014 Kitchener CHL Study. Special Policy Area No.8 The original development proposal as submitted with the application did not seek an increase to the FSR of the Low Density Multiple Residential designation of 1.0. However, through the development review process, it was identified that the partially below grade parking structure is required to be included as part of the FSR calculations resulting in an FSR of 1.2 for the original design. Through the review process, the applicant agreed to raise the on-site amenity area to the roof of a partially below grade parking level. This shift results in a larger amenity space with better access to sunlight. It also allows more parking to be located beneath the amenity space and within a structure. These beneficial changes have increased the amount of building floor space and has resulted in an FSR of 1.46 (as the entire area of the parking structure must be included in the FSR calculation). Staff note that if the site were flat and if the buildings had a different orientation, a developer would likely be able to accommodate an equal number of units, with all surface parking. This is less achievable on this site due to the grade change and would result in a less desirable building orientation and streetscape, less amenity space, and quite likely a request for a parking reduction, but would be more likely to comply with FSR requirements. Staff is of the opinion that locating parking under the building is desirable from a community and streetscape perspective. There is much less surface parking and the partially below grade parking makes use of the existing slope. The roof top of the parking structure area between the dwelling units provides for a larger on-site amenity space and larger landscaped setbacks around the perimeter as less surface area is dedicated to parking. The changes to the site have also allowed the number of parking spaces to be increased to 32 spaces. This helps to address concerns raised by residents about the limited availability of on -street parking and staff note that no parking reduction is required. Staff is of the opinion that the Special Policy to the increase to the FSR from 1.0 to 1.46 for a building which includes structure parking is appropriate. The revised plan achieves a better design and site layout overall. As a result of the increase to FSR, the number of units per hectare must also be recognized in the Special Policy. As a result of locating more parking within the building the FSR exceeds 1.0 and therefore the Special Policy must specifically permit 115 dwelling units per hectare. Staff also recommends that the Special Policy limit the overall number of storeys to 4, with permission for one additional floor of partially below -grade parking. The current policy does not regulate the number of floors, however, as the 4 -storey built form was considered through the supporting documentation, staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate to limit the height in keeping with the analysis. Proposed zoning regulations further refine maximum height regulations. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment is appropriate in consideration of policies contained Sections 4, 11 and 12. The proposed change in land use designation will permit an infill development which is compatible with surrounding land uses and maintains the existing character and planned function of the stable neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Low Density Multiple Residential land use designation with Special Policy Area No. 8 is appropriate for the subject lands and is good planning. Page 213 of 336 Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment A Zoning By-law Amendment has been requested to rezone the subject lands from `Residential Five Zone (R-5)' to `Residential Seven Zone (R-7)' with Special Regulation Provision 779R to implement the proposed designation. The proposed `R-7' zone permits multiple dwellings and aligns with the `Low Density Multiple Residential' designation. Each of the recommended site-specific zoning provisions is discussed in greater detail below. The intent of the special regulations is to tailor the zoning regulations to the built form proposed and the analysis by staff through the review of the zoning by-law amendment application. The proposed zoning will permit single detached, semi-detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings. The maximum building height of multiple dwellings is proposed to be 16 metres which would permit 4 storeys with one additional floor of structure parking. Setback regulations have been adjusted to provide for the proposed built form, and the proposed FSR of 1.46 is only permitted where there is structured parking. Proposed Regulation Pur ose Minimum lot width for a lot containing This increase to the minimum lot width requires that the a multiple dwelling with more than 3 parcels be consolidated prior to development of a multiple dwelling units shall be 36 metres. dwelling. Should the project not proceed, the site could continue to be used as a single, semi, duplex or triplex under the new `R-7' regulations. Maximum building height for a The proposed ZBA has been considered based on the multiple dwelling which includes proposed built form and height. The `R-7' zone permits a partially below grade structured height of 24 metres (approx. 8 storeys) and staff feel it is parking shall be 16 metres. Any appropriate to limit the height to implement the form multiple dwelling not incorporating articulated in the proposed site design. The regulations structured parking shall have a permit a height of 4 storeys with one additional floor of maximum height of 14 metres. partially below grade parking, or 4 storeys if there is no structured parking. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed height is appropriate. The four -storey portion of the build is generally considered low rise, however due to the significant grade change across the site, the ground floor parking increases the height by a full storey. The building will not provide unacceptable shadow impacts, the views from Cedar Hill are maintained and proposed setbacks protect privacy and mitigate for overlook. Maximum FSR for a multiple dwelling As discussed in the context of the OPA, the increase in which includes structured parking FSR allows for most of the on-site parking to be located in shall be 1.46 a partially below grade parking garage. The increase in structured parking increases the size of the private amenity and landscaped space, raises it to allow better natural light and functionality for future residents. Given the topography, the developer is penalized for providing structured parking as the entire floor must be included in the FSR calculation. Minimum front yard setback for lands The existing dwellings along this section of Cedar Street included on Appendix `H': have variable front yard setbacks. Staff is of the opinion a. For any portion of the building that it is appropriate for the partially below grade structure not exceeding 4.0 metres in to be setback 3.0 metres from the street as it will provide height, shall be 3.0 metres screening for the parking area and includes a walkway and porches above. This will help create pedestrian access Page 214 of 336 b. For any portion of a building from the street directly to units, improving the overall exceeding 4.0 metres in streetscape. Upper floors have some variation in setback. height, shall be 5.2 metres and First and second floor units are setback 5.2 metres, upper floor projections are however limited architectural projections on the 31d and 4t" permitted to 3.95 metres. floor bring portions of the building closer to the street. These limited areas are in keeping with the proposed balcony projections (which are permitted) and their placement near the center of the building doesn't result in any impact to the viewshed from the top of Cedar Hill. As discussed in the cultural heritage considerations the front yard setback maintains the viewshed from the top of Cedar Hill. Minimum rear yard setback of 3.5 Through the review of the application, the rear yard metres for any portion of a building setback was increased overall from the requested 5.45 not exceeding 3.0 metres in height. metres to 8.0 metres. This responds to concerns of neighbouring property owners with respect to overlook and privacy of adjacent rear yards. The reduced rear yard setback of 3.5 metres permits a partially below -grade mechanical building which is located at the back of the parking area. This building is less than one storey high, will not have windows or accesses to the rear yard, and will be screened at the rear of the property with a fence and landscaping. Minimum side yard setback to the The 1.5 m side yard setback for a building not exceeding northerly lot line: 9 metres in height is consistent with current by-law a. for any portion of a building regulations and is provided to permit the 1 storey elevator not exceeding 9.0 metres in enclosure along the northern property line. A 3.5 metres height shall be 1.5 metres, setback is appropriate for a building having a 4 -storey and height. Staff note that the side wall of the building on the b. For any portion of a building north abuts the parking lot of the neighbouring exceeding 9.0 metres in townhouses. height shall be 3.5 metres Dwelling units located on the ground The design of the subject building is not conducive to floor are not required to have an ground floor patios due to the change in grade across the exclusive use patio area. site. Rather all units, including those located at grade will be provided with private balconies. Stairs, access ramps and porches Due to the change in grade along the Cedar Street having height greater than 0.6 frontage, portions of the stairs, porches and walkways may metres above finished grade level project closer than 3.0 m to the street. These connections are permitted within the front yard provide direct pedestrian access from units to the street and within 3.0 metres of a street line and help create a more interesting and pedestrian oriented streetscape. That a "driveway visibility triangle" This regulation brings the driveway visibility triangle shall be measured from the point of measurements in line with the regulations of Zoning By - intersection of a street line and the law 2019-051. edge of a driveway a distance of 3 metres from the street line and 4.5 metres from the edge of the driveway Page 215 of 336 The applicant originally requested a parking reduction and reduction to visitor parking rates. Through the site redesign, the number of parking spaces has increased, and 32 parking spaces are now provided. This exceeds the minimum by-law requirement of 1.25 spaces per unit. The 6 required visitor spaces can now also be provided, and special parking regulations are no longer required. Staff note that the proposed number of parking spaces both exceeds the minimum number of spaces required under By-law 85-1 and complies with the proposed maximum parking ratio for multiple dwellings contemplated in the Neighbourhood Planning Review. Staff is of the opinion that the amount of parking will meet the needs of future residents and does not represent an oversupply. The proposed development will continue to support transit. Department and Agency Comments: Preliminary circulation of the OPA and ZBA was undertaken on January 10, 2022, to applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency. Site Design and Building details will continue to be refined through the Site Plan Approval process and will be generally consistent with the design considered through this development application. Copies of comments are found in Appendix `D' of this report. The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed OPA and ZBA: • Planning Justification Report Prepared By: MHBC Planning Ltd. (November 2021) • Urban Design Brief Prepared By: MHBC Planning Ltd. (November 2021) • Conceptual Elevations, Site Plan and Floor Plans Prepared By: Architect Samir Nassiem (November 1, 2021, revised May 10, 2022) • Stationary Noise Impact Study Prepared By: JJ Acoustic Engineering Ltd. (July 26, 2021, updated June 13, 2022) • Functional Servicing and Water Distribution Analysis Prepared By: Fariborz Fariborzi, P. Eng (October, 27, 2021) • Preliminary Stormwater Management Report Prepared By: Fariborz Fariborzi, P. Eng (October, 27, 2021) • Transportation Impact Brief Prepared By: Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited (October 26, 2021) • Sustainability Statement Prepared By: MHBC Planning Ltd. (November 11, 2021) Neighbourhood Comments And Staff Response: Planning staff received 15 written submissions which are attached as Appendix "E". Comments were received following the initial circulation in January 2022 and the Neighbourhood Meeting held on March 29, 2022. The comments received from community members during the consultation on these applications is described in greater detail below. Overall, of the responses received in writing, 6 indicate general support for the proposed land use and development. Of those expressing concern and comments, most were in the following areas: Page 216 of 336 • Parking • Traffic • Loss of Privacy and Overlook • Lack of Neighbourhood Amenity • Affordability and Tenue Parking Provision of adequate parking was one of the primary concerns expressed by residents responding to this application. The applicant has revised the plan and is no longer seeking a reduction to the required amount of parking or a change in the number of spaces which must be reserved for visitors. Through the review process the applicant has increased the number of spaces on-site to 32 spaces, which exceeds the minimum parking rate of 1.25 spaces/unit (1.25 x 24 units = 30) and 6 visitor spaces will be provided. Residents expressed concerns with spillover parking onto surrounding neighbourhood streets. In many circumstances near LRT stations, Planning and Transportation staff support parking reductions, however staff acknowledge that there is limited opportunity to provide on -street parking in this neighbourhood due to the steep and narrow streets, and as most of the parking is located beneath the building, there is little impact to the streetscape or surrounding properties. Of note the applicant also proposes to sign one of the visitor spaces as a short-term visitor space. This space will provide a convenient parking space for delivery vehicles, food delivery services, taxis, etc., to reduce the number of vehicles which may attempt to stop on Cedar Street South — as on street stopping was identified as a concern by residents. Staff also note that this property is well served by public and active transportation networks. The site is located within about 250 metres of the Kitchener Market Ion Station, and several bus routes operate on nearby roads. The site is close to the Iron Horse Trail, as well as on -street bike facilities and will include on-site weather protected bicycle storage for residents and short term bicycle parking options, making walking, cycling and multi -modal trips convenient for both residents and visitors. The site is also located near the downtown and is within close walking distance of various services, retail (including food stores and the Kitchener Market), restaurants and employment opportunities. Traffic Several residents raised concerns with the increase in traffic volume on Cedar Street because of this development and make observations that Cedar Street is narrow and steep, and that visibility can be difficult entering and exiting driveways. Residents also suggest that a stop sign could be added at Church Street to help slow traffic coming from the downtown towards Courtland Ave. The applicant has submitted a Transportation Impact Brief which has been reviewed by the City's Transportation Services staff. Projections indicate that in 2026 Cedar Street is anticipated to operate with about 2000 vehicles a day, which is at the lower range of daily traffic for a Minor Neighbourhood Collector (2000 — 5000 vehicles a day). During weekday morning and afternoon periods, the proposal is estimated to generate 8 and 11 vehicle trips, respectively. Data was based on a traffic count conducted in August 2021, and historical data gathered in June 2014, and the study concludes that there is sufficient capacity on Cedar Street for the subject development, turning lanes are not required, there is minimal vehicle delay and sufficient vehicle capacity along Cedar Street South at the site access to accommodate for the proposed development. A sight distance analysis was also completed as part of the Transportation Impact Brief. The analysis indicates a shortfall of 36m in stopping sight distance. However, there are other site access points along Cedar Street South with similar shortfalls, and there is limited opportunity to make changes within the right-of-way. Existing signage provides notification to motorists to be aware of hidden intersections. The driveway location is at the lowest point on the site, providing for views of vehicles approaching over the top of the hill. Driveway visibility triangles will be maintained, and vehicles will be entering and exiting the site in a forward motion (i.e., unlike driveways for houses, cars will not Page 217 of 336 need to back onto the street, which helps improve safety). Transportation Services staff is satisfied with the sight distance analysis, driveway location and design. Several residents raised concerns regarding the lack of an all -way stop at the intersection of Cedar Street and Church Street. Cedar Street between Church Street and Weber Street is part of the downtown cycling grid and will be converted to a cycling street in the late summer/fall of 2022. This work will introduce a separated two-way on street cycling lanes, and will reduce vehicular traffic to a single, one-way lane (similar to the work undertaken on Joseph Street in 2021). Cedar Street will become one-way for vehicular traffic from the downtown towards Church Street and a new 4 -way stop will be added at the intersection of Cedar St and Church St. While primarily intended to improve and connect the downtown cycling network, an additional benefit of the Cedar Street work will be that traffic on Cedar Street will be slowed and likely reduced. Loss of Privacy/Overlook Concerns A letter was received from a neighbour raising concern with matters of overlook, privacy, and proximity to the existing rear yard private space. Staff met the resident on-site to discuss the concerns in person and can offer the following. The proposed building has been adjusted based on feedback received from nearby property owners to help protect privacy and mitigate for overlook. Many balconies have been reoriented to the sides and fronts of the buildings to reduce the number facing neighbours to the rear, and the building has been shifted closer to Cedar Street to increase the rear yard setback beyond the 7.5 metre minimum. Staff also note that the below grade parking is setback about 3.5 metres from the rear lot line, allowing an ample space for landscaping and new plantings including larger canopy trees. Further, the parking garage will be partially below grade minimizing headlight glare and a new 1.8 m high fence will be installed as a visual barrier around the perimeter of the site. Affordability and Tenue Several residents raised questions about the planned tenure, the variety of unit types and whether affordable housing was being proposed. Staff can confirm that this development is intended to be a purpose built rental, but will not be considered affordable housing, and is anticipated to have market rents. The buildings have been designed to have a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwelling units (8 of each type). Staff comment that ground -oriented, purpose built rental dwellings will help to provide a variety of unit types in the central city and represent `missing middle' housing. The three (3) bedroom units will help provide options to families with children seeking larger rental units. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 95-101 Cedar Street South. to be developed with a multiple dwelling (stacked townhouse). Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. Staff recommends that the applications be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding Page 218 of 336 the application posted to the City's website in the winter of 2022. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional courtesy notice of the public meeting was circulated to all property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject lands, and those responding in writing to the preliminary circulation or after the Neighbourhood Meeting, which was held on March 29, 2022, and Notice of the Public Meeting was posted in The Record on July 15, 2022 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix C). CONSULT — The OPA and ZBA were originally circulated to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject lands on January 14, 2022. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 12 households; 3 additional households responded following the Neighbourhood Meeting; and 12 individuals logged into the Neighbourhood meeting. Staff conducted one site meeting with an interested resident on June 24, 2022. Written comments are included in Appendix `E'. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Municipal Act, 2001 • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 • Regional Official Plan, 2010 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • Kitchener Growth Management Strategy • Zoning By-law 85-1 & 2019-051 • City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual REVIEWED BY: Garett Stevenson - Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services APPENDIX Appendix A — Proposed Official Plan Amendment Appendix B — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Appendix C — Newspaper Notice Appendix D — Department and Agency Comments Appendix E — Community Comments Page 219 of 336 Appendix A — Proposed Official Plan Amendment AMENDMENT NO. TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 95 - 101 Cedar Street South Page 220 of 336 AMENDMENT NO. TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER 95 - 101 Cedar Street South iNnFx SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT R11 rim \Ia1Fig76 APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of August 8, 2022 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of August 8, 2022 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council Page 221 of 336 AMENDMENT NO. TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the 1994 Official Plan of the City of Kitchener. This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive and Schedule `A'. SECTION 2 — PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to amend: • Map 11 (Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use) of the 1994 Official Plan by redesignating lands from Low Rise Conservation to Low Density Multiple Residential and to add new Special Policy Area 8; • Section 13.3.4 of the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan in the 1994 Official Plan to add new Policy 8 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.46 and to permit 115 units per hectare for a building having structured parking and a maximum building height of 4 storeys with one additional storey of partially below -grade parking. SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT The subject lands are located at 95, 97 and 101 Cedar Street South. The lands are located within the designated Built -Up Area and within a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the 2014 Official Plan and are designated `Low Rise Conservation' in the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, which was approved as part of the 1994 Official Plan. The designation permits a range of residential dwelling types up to three dwelling units. The subject lands are proposed to be developed with a 24 -unit stacked townhouse development having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.46 with 4 storeys of residential use and 1 storey of partially below -grade parking. The applicant is proposing to redesignate the lands to `Low Density Multiple Residential' with a new Special Policy Area. The proposed development has been reviewed relative to applicable Provincial and Regional Plans. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development and sets out policies to consider in building strong healthy communities. The PPS promotes compact and efficient development patterns that minimize land consumption and make efficient use of infrastructure. Policies promote the accommodation of appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types, and development that supports active transportation and that are transit supportive. The proposed designation represents intensification, minimizing the consumption of land and making use of existing infrastructure. The proposed development accommodates a range of rental units in an area that is both well served by active transportation options and public transit. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is consistent with the PPS. The Growth Plan provides policies for where and how to grow. The plan identifies delineated built-up areas as key focus areas for intensification to make efficient use of land and Page 222 of 336 infrastructure to support transit viability and provide flexibility to capitalize on new economic and employment opportunities, while ensuring the provision of a full range of housing options to accommodate a range of incomes and household sizes all as part of a complete community. The proposed Official Plan Amendment is in conformity with the Growth Plan. The subject lands are in the delineated built-up area and in a MTSA. The proposed redevelopment will make better use of existing infrastructure and helps to support density targets of a MTSA. The proposed land use change contributes to a complete community by increasing the range of rental housing options and increasing housing choice in a neighbourhood within walking distance of commercial, employment, institutional, parks and other uses. Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be directed to Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), Reurbanization Corridors, Major Local Nodes and Urban Designated Greenfield Areas. In general, these areas will be planned to create a more compact urban form with a greater mix of employment, housing, and services in close proximity to each other. The subject lands are located within the draft boundaries of a MTSA. In accordance with Regional policies the proposed development supports a more compact urban form within a comfortable walking distance of an ION station and in an area with a mix of land uses including food destinations, services, and amenities, fosters walkability, and supports a high-quality public realm. Further, 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. The proposal will contribute to the creation of complete communities with a development pattern, density and land use that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, and supports the provision of housing. The applicant is proposing to amend the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use by redesignating the lands from `Low Rise Conservation' to `Low Density Multiple Residential' and add a new Special Policy to permit a maximum FSR of 1.46 and maximum of 115 units per hectare. Staff recommend that the height of a multiple dwelling be limited to 4 storeys, with provision of one additional floor of partially below -grade parking. Through the review process staff worked with the applicant to increase the size of the partially below grade parking level and raise the amenity space to the roof of the parking structure to increase its size and improve its function and access to sunlight. Due to the change in grade across the site, the parking structure is partially above grade, and as such contributes to the FSR calculation. In staff's opinion the increase in structured parking has improved the overall design of the site and the increase to the FSR is justified. The special policy recognizing an increase to the number of units per hectare from 100 to 115 is required. Policy regulations permit multiple dwellings to exceed 100 units per hectare provided the FSR of 1.0 is not exceeded. Staff is of the opinion that the increase to the FSR to permit structured parking is appropriate and represents good planning, and therefore the increase to the number of units per hectare is also appropriate. Staff also recommend that the special policy limit the overall height of the development to 4 storeys, with one additional floor of partially below -grade parking. The Low Density Multiple Residential designation does not specifically regulate building height, however as the development application has been evaluated based on the design concept and supporting documentation, it is appropriate to limit the number of floors to what was evaluated. Different considerations with respect to massing, shadows etc. would be required for a higher rise building. The proposed policy will ensure future development occurs to the height considered Page 223 of 336 through this development application. Heights and setbacks are further regulated through the zoning by-law. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed land use category of `Low Density Multiple Residential' is appropriate for the subject lands. The site is in the stable residential neighbourhood portion of a Major Transit Station Area. While the stable neighbourhood is not the focus for intensification with high-rise and high-density development, compatible redevelopment and intensification are appropriate. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment complies with policies of Sections 4 (Housing), 11 (Urban Design) and 12 (Cultural Heritage) and maintains the existing character and planned function of this neighbourhood. Further analysis with respect to these policies is provided below and in report DSD 2022-356. Housing: Housing policies of the OP direct staff to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure, and affordability to satisfy the varying needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed stacked townhouse development represents the `missing middle' that bridges the gap between low rise, low intensity dwellings, and high-rise towers. This form of housing is ground oriented with individual entrances. The proposed development includes a mix of unit sizes, including one-, two- and three-bedroom rental units, and while not required by building code for this form of housing, there also proposed to be several accessible units. The rental units are not planned to be deeply affordable or subsidized, however will increase the number of units available on the property from 7 to 24. Urban Design Section 11 of the City's OP outlines policies with respect to urban design. To address these policies, the applicant has submitted an Urban Design Brief, and conceptual site plans, elevations, and renderings. This documentation has been reviewed and accepted by City Urban Design staff and will be implemented through the subsequent Site Plan Review process. In accordance with Urban Design Policies, staff is of the opinion that the site design provides for a high-quality public realm, safe site circulation for all modes of transportation, and that site servicing components are functional but screened from view from the public realm. The development will enhance pedestrian usability, respect, and reinforce human scale, create an attractive streetscape, and complements and contributes to the character of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood. Through the detailed site plan control process, staff will ensure that appropriate landscaping will be installed to enhance the building and streetscape, and lighting will be provided to maintain safe and appropriate light levels which minimize light spill onto neighbouring properties and are dark sky compliant. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to review the detailed site design, elevations and building materials, in order to ensure implementation of the proposed built form and high standard of building design. Cultural Heritage The subject properties are located within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) as identified in the 2014 Kitchener CHL Study. The properties municipally addressed as 97 and 101 Cedar Street South were identified as properties of specific CHL interest given the contribution they make to the viewshed from the top of Cedar Hill. The view atop Cedar Hill looking southwest affords an unobstructed view for several kilometres toward the City's countryside and well beyond the limits of the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood. These properties, however, are not protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was not required as the subject lands are not designated. Instead, staff requested a section within the Urban Design Brief commenting on potential Page 224 of 336 impacts to the identified views from the top of the hill and how they should be mitigated. Heritage Planning Staff have reviewed the Urban Design brief that was submitted in support of these applications. The Urban Design Brief concluded that: • The proposed development respects the orientation, setback, and design of the buildings in the neighborhood, and provides a contemporary but compatible development in the neighborhood. • The design does not adversely impact the views from Cedar Street. Initially the building was setback 6.5 metres from the street. However, after considering staff comments and comments from the public, the applicant has revised the design and has shifted the building 1.3 metres closer to the street, to 5.2 metres (with upper storeys permitted to project up to 3.95 metres). Furthermore, the revised design also has an inclusion of doors, stairs, and entrances along the Cedar Street frontage to improve the pedestrian realm. An updated viewshed analysis was conducted to ensure that the revisions would not have an adverse impact on the viewshed at the top of Cedar Hill and Heritage staff are satisfied the reduced setback will not have an adverse impact on the view along Cedar Street South. In accordance with policies contained in section 12 of the Official Plan, Heritage Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed zoning by-law setback regulations will conserve and protect the views from Cedar Hill as identified in the 2104 Kitchener CHL Study. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment will permit the lands to be developed with a multiple dwelling that is compatible with the Cedar Hill neighbourhood with respect to massing and scale. The surrounding neighbourhood consists of a mix of residential dwelling types, heights, and densities, which have been constructed in different architectural styles and over time. The proposed multiple dwelling will be compatible with surrounding residential land uses and will contribute to the character of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood. The building has been designed to address the street, and setbacks consider both the streetscape and the interface with surrounding lands. The proposed development represents the `missing middle' a much -desired form of housing bridging the gap between high-density high-rise towers and low density single detached dwellings. The proposed development is accessible, ground oriented and includes a range of 1-, 2- and 3 -bedroom units. The proposal meets minimum parking requirements and includes facilities to support active transportation including onsite weather protected bike parking and pedestrian connections to the street, and at a density that will help to support transit. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and complies with the Regional Official Plan, as it promotes walkability, is transit -supportive, maximizes the use of existing infrastructure, is compatible with and will not have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage landscape and the surrounding community. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed development represents good planning. Page 225 of 336 SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT The 1994 City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: a) Part 3, Section 13.3.4 Special Policies is amended by adding new Section 13.7.4.8 thereto as follows: "8. Notwithstanding the Low Density Multiple Residential land use designation and policies for lands addressed as 95-101 Cedar Street South, the maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio for a multiple dwelling shall be 1.46, a maximum of 115 dwelling units per hectare shall be permitted, and multiple dwellings shall be permitted to have a maximum of four (4) storeys, with one (1) additional storey of partially below -grade parking. b) Map 11 — Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use Secondary Plan is amended by designating the lands, municipally known as 95-101 Cedar Street South, as `Low Density Multiple Residential' with Special Policy Area No. 8, instead of `Low Rise Conservation', as shown on the attached Schedule W. Page 226 of 336 APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of August 8, 2022 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 95-101 Cedar Street South Concept [drawing AD y MuLtiple Dwelling I Sid _ Reductions to Stacked Townhouses 4 Storey,-: Setbacks , JT Have Your nice Heard! Date: August 8, 2022 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, find meeting details or to appear as a delegation, visit: kitcheneLca/m esti ngs To learn more. about this project, including inormation on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchener.cal PlanningApplications or contact: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 X 7987 katie.a ilderl'E kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener Inas received applications to amend the Official flan and Zoning By law to facilitate the development of the lands at 95-101 Cedar Street South vJth a multiple residential development consisting of 24 stacked townhouse units. The lands are proposed to be redesignated from 'Low Rise Conservation' to 'Low Density Multiple Residential' with a Special Policy Area and to be rezoned from °R 5' to 'R®7wth a site-speciif c prevision to permit a multiple residential use. a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.46 and a height of 4 storeys, with an additional partially below grade parking level. and reduced building setbacks. Page 227 of 336 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of August 8, 2022 Page 228 of 336 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council Page 229 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT �rom: Chere Schwindt Sent; Wednesday, January 26, 2G22 6:69 PM To; Katie Ande-I <Katie,AnderIPkitchener,ca>; Chere Schwindt Miles Sch,vi ndt Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development in our neighbourhood -feedback Hello KatieAnderl. My husband and I are co-okvrners in a small apartment building at , Kitchener. We received the postcard asking for feedback regarding the Multiple Dwelling Stacked Townhouses at 95- 105 Cedar Street by the House of Friendship. 'Ale purchased our building in 2010 and we try to keep aur units nice, uVdated and friendly. Downtown Kitch ever has a lovely, welcoming, bohemian vibe. Our oldest works at the market on Saturdays_ Although ve do not lire in the building {we live less than 15 minutes away}, our family does spend a bit of time there_ At the bottom of the hill of out building, where it joins Cameron Heights, there is often a terit or hvo. Those without permanent shelter are painfully evident in the downtown area. Homelessness is something that really, mnost of us are just a couple of unfortunate steps away from.. A mare dense city population is better for the environment- with quick access to amenities and transportation, and less farmirural land used for sprawling homes. This also allows for more services to those who require them, with the proximity to the LRT. This project seems to have so much going for it. While many may fear for property5th[ obtaining good new tenants we believe this will benefit the entire area, and lift the welfare of all. 'Ale both fully are supportive of this housing project and hope that there aren't too many obstacles_ VVe would like to keep informed if possible_ Thank You for the opportunity to provide our input: Chere Schwindt and Miles Schwindt Page 230 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT From: Noah Medd Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:56 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.AnderI@kitchener.ca> Cc: Debbie Chapman <DeWe. Cha pman g kitch en er. ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] ZBA21f022/Cf KA Comments Hello, am a resident of In regards to the development application submitted for 95 -101 Cedar St S, I do not believe this development would be useful or beneficial for our community. As it stands, we only have one meagerly stocked grocery store in proximity to us and an expensive Shoppers downtown to supply us with food. I do not own a car so I must spend money to go to other neigh bou rh ood s to acquire food and household goods. I believe this constitutes a food desert, and as such, I question the decision to introduce more housing when food insecurity in this area has not been sufficiently addressed. Thank you for your consideration, Noah Medd Page 231 of 336 APPENDIX E — COMMUNITY INPUT From: Kale Hofstetter Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 8:41 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie,Anderl@kitchener.ca> Suhject: [EXTERNAL] Deve[ opment for 95 - 1a1 Cedar Street Kitchener Hello Katie, I am writing in regards to a pamphlet I received in the mail regarding an application for development for 95-101 Cedar Street in Kitchener. I live , in a detached house on I think that this development is exactly what the neighborhood needs. This type of infill densification is welcome in my opinion, and the fresh modern design demonstrated in the renderings would suit the neighborhood. Downtown Kitchener is changing quickly, and some of the worn out homes on Cedar Hill are past their prime. This type of development is welcome, do have a question regarding the stalled development on Madison Avenue at the intersection of Church and Madison. It seemed it was full steam ahead until the pandemic happened. Are there plans in the works for demolishing the three homes? I heard at one time that stacked condos would be put up, but the project hasn't moved forward in the last three years. Can you please let me know the status. The abandoned homes are really bad for the neighborhood, and kids from Cameron Heights seem to get past the fence often. A push for development on that site is needed. Kale Hofstetter -----Original Message From: Heidi -Anne Keiser Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:07 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] About the 95-101 Cedar St S application Hello Katie, My husband and I received the flyer for the new development. We are excited to see how it will turn out. Our only question is how big are the townhouses? Hope you have a great night! Sincerely, Heidi Keiser Page 232 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT From: CHRISTINE SMITH Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 8:56 AM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kutchener.ca> Cc: Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kltchener.ca>; Subject: [EXTERNAL] 95-101Cedar Street South Hi Katie. We are residents onWhile the concept of the housing project is not an issue for us the parking is. is one way and our driveways are a challenge due to the hills and .space. As new developments are happening in our neighbourhood we are seeing an increase of parking on our streetfrom the multiple dwelling on Cedarstreet and those visiting the residents. At times it is very difficult to get in and out of our driveway due to the number of cars on our street and the limited parking spaces on the new developments or additions to homes. The reality is people have cars and limiting parking spaces in new projects has a negative impact on our streets and surrounding streets. hope the parking issue will be addressed with all those involved with the project. Christine & Randy Smith �rom: Sally Gunz Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 4:51 PIVII To: Katie Anderl <Katie,Anderlkitchener,ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 95-101 Cedar S Katie: I have been involved in all the zoning changes and proposed changes for our community (since the early 1990s) and I am afraid I don't understand the difference bet teen the "zoning from R-5 to R-7 with special regulation provisions allow redevelopment of lands with a 24 unit stacked townhouse complex. (C/R OPA21/D13/C/KA)" and the other application change. ;Khat isn't clear from the application is hew blg the townhouses will be -- one, two or more bedrooms? Also whether there is any space around the project. Is it possible to get a better indication of the site plan so l can see the location of the building on the site and vis-a-vis surrounding buildings? Thanks very much. Sorry if my questions sound a bit naive but I'm not good at the tecrncal language. BTW, I thought underthe proposed zoning for the area, this wouldn't happen on Ceda- b-1 maybe this is w rang. Ha s the proposed zon i ng go ne th rough yet? Sally Page 233 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT From: Karen Taylor -Harrison Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 5:55 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.AnderlC@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 95-101 Cedar Street South Good Qu Ms. Anderl: Thank you to the City of Kitche ne r fo r the opportunity of commenting on the proposed deveIopmernt located at 95-101 Cedar Street South. do have some issues with more condos but they are related to the difficulties in reaching people living in condos to become active members of our community. do have concerns about the amount of traffic that will be added to a relatively narrow street that is also the steepest street in the Region. The sheer volume and speed of vehicles coming into our community using Cedar Street to attempt to bypass other streets that might....GGd forbid... slow them down and make them one or two minutes bate has increased exponentially the point where my family accesses our home on Church Street at g Street via Benton Street. used to access Church Street via Madison Avenue coming from Courtland but I have nearly been clipped so many times at the four way due to properties not allowing clear site lines. Now I travel to Benton Street. believe the plan to make one part of Cedar Street S. one way will only confuse and annoy people who already have very short fuses so Cedar Street now becomes a street that I no longer will use at all simply because it is unsafe. would like to know whether the increase of traffic on an already busy street was at all considered during discussions of site plans for this development. I cannot imagine how people on St. George will feel about this development and people from there using St. George to park on along with the reduction of parking at 86 Cedarstreet S. that will have people scrambling for parking. It is wonderful that vire are planning for al walking, bike riding city but we are not there yet and what do people do with their vehicles in the meantime? Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Regards Karen Taylor -Harrison Koren Taylor-Hcxrrison Cedar Hill Community &roup Page 234 of 336 APPENDIX E –COMMUNITY INPUT On Feb 4, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Karen Taylor -Harrison . rc =�a: Please use the above ema°' address. Thar, < you Katie. I appreciate your response. I am aware that there studies done re traffic b e =- ' e-.'cular, pedestrian a -id no doubt bicycles but I assumed by the City of Kitchener not the applicart. That "feels' like a conflict o` interest It would follow in my mind that the applicant therefo-e could be help respo ns i b le for a ny ensuing dam agefinjury/loss of life should vehicuIar.accidents occur or Cedar Street S that could be proven to be as a result of increased traffic fIow- Any concessions, conce;-m, thoughts give to parking of overMcw vehicles on the applicant's property? Don't mean to be difficult here Katie but we have lived here for over 30 years and plan to age out in thJs house_ The thoughts of being "forced" out of our home because it is now more dangerous for us to walk or drive as a resul# of the increase of traffic is most worrisome_ —Original Message— From: Daren Taylor -Harrison Sent_ Thursday, February 10, 2022 12:55 PM To: Katie Anderl <KatieAnderIPkitchener.ca> Subject_ [EXTERNAL] Re: Email Good day Katie: I read in the paper today about plans to change the configuration of Duke Street based on a "Toronto model". We are NOT Toronto) Toronto has lots of streets crossing each other. We are a very small downtown and using of streets is limited and add traffic to ether streets_ Cedar Street I feel will now take any vehicles not wanting to deal with the changes being proposed for Duke Street. I have been in meetings Katie where the staff told us their physical mandate for study traffic pa#terns_ It was not all encompassing_ If you have staff a.vho don't live or drive in the downtown then those restrictions to their mandate makes sense. Another condo building on Cedar Street in my mind just adds more possibility for accidents_ Karen From: Karen Taylor -Harrison Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 12.:.22 PM To Katie Anderl <Katie_Anderl kitchener_ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Email Thank you for your reply. The other problem Katie is that the streets are old___ like m ._I -0k, narrow anc some of the homes and properties force a vehicle to actually pull past the earner to obta - clear s"te lines ___ Sg____ Church coming from Madison to Cedar South_ The hill is steep therefore limiting site lines from Courtland up the Cedar Hill. If you are stopped at the stop signs located cn Church Street at Cedar Street S_ you pray to one is speeding up the hill because it is almost too late to avoid an accident because your sight lines are limited_ We will be forced to go to Edenton to access our tiny neighbourhood_ Sorry to beleaguer ycot but frankly I am worried_ Page 235 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT On Feb 13, 20221 at 9:40 AM, sharon Bergen Dear City of Kjchener I'm a home owner in the Sandhills/C:edar street area. Here are my concerns about 95-101 Cedar St. S. There are two stacked townhouses at 4 storeys, Do they match the height of the neighbourhood? 2-3 storms 2 buildings seem very crowded for that space. The 2nd building - do balconies look down on the neighbours backyard. Are lights shining down -r neighbours? Their privacy is important, Is there a plan for a green space for a children's playground? And a garden with trees. plants etc. Is there a plan for a privacy fence around this property ? Over the past few ygars we have seen a real increase in yo ung families moving into this area anc restoring these older homes. Hope to see more of this. Thanks, Sharon Bergen Hi Sharon, Thanks for reaching out and submitting your commer:ts Or tl­e application. I -4viII add you to the circulation Iist so you wiII receive notice Of upe"Omirg re'.ghoourhood and/or pubii+r meetings. Your comments will be considered and summarized in the fallo-wing ways: • In the preparation of a 'What we heard' summary rem • During my Planning analysis; and • In a recommendation reportto Cour,col. Additional information about the proposal can be found online including additional images and the conceptual site plan. https,//app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocsf0penUata/AMANDADataSets/Supporting Documents List 641614. pdf Images: https:/Iapp2.kitchener.ca/AppDocsfOpenData/AMANDADataSets/641614 3D 2DRendering.pdfThe Site Plan: https://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocsjOpenDat@/AMANDADataSets/641614 Conceptual%20Site 2DPlan, pdf There are balconies and windows on all sides of the units. We will require a lighting plan as part of the detailed site ,plan, and they must design lightingso that it does not cause a glare onto neighbouri..,g row and it cannot 'spill' over the property line (and must be dark sky complian ). Page 236 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT The ceveluper is proposing a courtyard amenity area between the hvo buildings. Additional landscaping details will be reviewed through the detailed site plan stage, but there will be a requirement for plartirgs. I .v i I Iiave to follow-up with the applicant about fencing details, howe'rer vire typically would requ're a vis,uaI ba rrier araund such a development. Find Regards, Katie Katie Anderl .Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2204x7387 I TIY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.anderl[kitchener,ca Page 237 of 336 APPENDIX E -COMMUNITY INPUT Page 238 of 336 APPENDIX E –COMMUNITY INPUT February 14, 202 'I Joame Dill & John HolLaud Brad Hill Katie Anderl- Senior Planner City of Kitchener katie-anderlgldtchenier. e a Debbie Chapman, City Councillor Ward 9 debbie-chapman Uchener. ea Re- Application for Development at 95-101 Cedar Street South- Kitchener Bear Kitie 3.u.derl and Debbie Chapman: W. e object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of two four -storey multiple dwelling townhouses at 95-101 Cedar Street South. Such buildings will drastically reduce our quality of life and severely limit our right to the inj oyment to our awn home over the next 20-30 years by 1) Threatening to encroach on our property line, thereby challen.gin g our lights as hotneo4�riers- 21') Completely eliminating our privacy. J) Causing an unhealthy rise in stress hormones and the potential for illness through the loss of privacy and by adding an imacceptable amount ofnoise, light and air pollution — day grid night — straight into our back yard. 4) iiamting the ecosystem by stopping us from creatmg our planned back yard pollinator gardens — in which we have begun to replace grass Arith mostly native plants — due to lass of natural light and privacy. 5) Disrupting the mental health benefits of being able to connect with nature by blocking im my beautiful. mattnre trees from cru sightlme. Please see the following explanations for why we say this Page 239 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT 1) Our Property Line We have read the reports and �Aeived the drawings on the city's website, yet many aspects of this proposed development are still not clear to us. At present, there is a fence along the entire rear line of our property_ that fence belongs solely to us and is located inside our property lime. Our property line extends past the fence by at least 1.6 feet to 0.7 feet, according to the property survey we had done in 2006. At that time, wooden stakes %ewe placed to delineate otu rear property line, but they were removed without cur per=ssivn by the people who purchased the property on the other side of most of that fence line. The Existing Conditions Plan appears to accurately show that our fence is located well vAiithm our property line. Some of the dra%� ngs that show our property lime depict a wooden fence but none of the drawings state whether they are showing our fence or a new fence they intend to build; either way- 1) our fence does not sit on the property line and must not be as:sumed to be doing so; and 2.) they may not build a fence directly on our property line. The standard, as use understand it, is to build a fence %Nithm one's own property line, which is not clearly indicated by the draivings_ (Conceptual Site Plan- page: 1: "1.8m HIGH VISUAL BARRIER, ('UG'OOD FENCE)') In addition, at least same of the parking spaces will be located "at the rear of buildings." It is not clear how close to our property line, or our fence, the cars will be able to park_ (lam -roan Design Brief Section 6-5-, Dr ve%Nmy & Parking) We must not have a situation in which -vehicles using their parlcLug area can collide with our fence_ People accessing that area must not be perinitted to scale our fence in order to use our back yard as a short cut_ 'We do not give permission for our fences to be used for signage, light fixtures, or anything else. For these reasons, we also obj ect to the request "[t] o pernnit a rear yard .setback of 5.4 5 metres instead of 7.5 metres_:' (tarring B�-Idw Amandrrrent Z3AJJ10J31C1KA, ficial Purr Amendment OPA2I10221C'Il !) Our property line must be respected_ The mteggV of our fence must be safeguarded - Page 240 of 336 -3- '1 Loss of Privacv APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT The Urban Das gn Brrgf contains an egregious he concerning the loss of privacy this proposed development will cause us. In response to the city's compatibilirY requirements_ Section 4.1 states as follows (emphasis added): --d) New buildings. additions_ modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and'or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts. particularly with respect to privacy. ..Design Response: Retaining walls. landscaping and fencing have been incorporated as privacy shields. Window orientation and lighting have been piimalih- oriented internally and towards the street to minimize privacy impacts on surrounding sites. The lands abutting the rear property line have significant mature trees that protect thein piivacy." First: Drawings clearly show that they intend to have balconies (ixith sliding glass doors). and probably also large windows. facing our backyard. despite stating they will JI]imit views onto adjacent properties by providing for units fronting on to Cedar Street and internal to the site." (Urban Design Brief. Section 3.0: Section 6.2. Site Design: Section 6.3. Building Facades-, and Section 6.5. Windows: also Conceptuai .Site Plan. page _'). Second: «-E FL-kVE :\-O NLAnRE TREES ON OLTR PRDPERIT We have five small trees (that %will not grow much taller) along a different property like and they will do nothing to provide privacy from the proposed development. %17e have ZERO trees along our rear proper_ line. as you will see in this photograph, taken in our back yard in January _'U 2. Page 241 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT _4_ An important detail to keep in naiad when considering our loss of privacy is the height of the elevation of the proposed) site- plus the height of the buildings; compared to the height of our home and the first half of our back yard, which is considerably lower. Only the ba ck half of our yard is at the same elevation as the building that would be. closest to us - Also, although the buildings are described as being fcnu storeys in height: since the first occupied floor is one storey above, ground level, they are effectively five storeys high- (Urban Design Brief Section 3.2) It is as if the developers are completely ignoring the impact this building will have on us -1h7 ile. they state that "[b]alconies overlook the Cedar Street right of way and the common amenity area located at grade and central to the site," the accompanying drawing clearly shows balconies. overlooking our back yard. (Urban Design Brief, page 13 ) It is not clear )rote close the balconies will be to our proper line or our fence- For this reason, we reiterate our objection to the request jflo permit a rear yard setback of 5.45 metres instead of 7-5 metres-" (Zoning B)Irrw. .4mendment ZBA21 131CKA; OffIcial Plan Amendment OPA2110221CIKA) The buildings are described as consisting of "24 residential units, which is an increase of 17 units compared with the existing site-" This represents a huge jump in the number of people who will be able to overlook our back yard and home, from a significantly increased height- (Urban Dae ign Brief; Section 3-2, Conceptual Design) It %01 be impossible for the builders to " [o]rgan ze porches, balconies and patios to reduce overlook onto other private spaces_" (Urban Design Brief- Section 6.5 - Balconies) We will have no pri�:r Page 242 of 336 -5- 3) Noise, Light and h' Pollution APPENDIX E –COMMUNITY INPUT The proximity of these building; and their occupants to our outdoor and indoor living spaces cannot be overstated. Noise travels really well in our neighbourboo ; as it is. outdoor gatherings —€specially at night when the weather is good — create a level of noise th-.it makes it difficult to sleep, but fortunately our neighbours are, for the most part, a msiderate, and they unlit this type of gathering. The addition of many more people, and the provision of an outdoor courtyard/party space;, will raise the noise level and %%rill likely disturb many more nights of sleep. Their cars: some of which will be parked on the other side of our property line, will likely add to the noise level at any time of the dad, or night as well. {"190 square metres of outdoor amenity space central to the two stacked townhouse buildings_" Urban Design Brief, Section 3-2 and Section 6.5} -No matter what they say, the lights inside and outside the buildings will add to the light pollution in the neighbourhood, which has become terrible after multi -unit buildings were erected at 110 Madison Avenue South and on Cedar Street next to the proposed building site - And there's no getting around the fact that the neighbourhood's air quality v6ill be worsened by the increase in the number of cars_ Cour stress levels xvill rise and our health mU suffer_ 4) Harming -Mother Nature This is not an income property_ this is your home, and we expect to live her, for the next 2030 years_ We are small homeowners and have to do our yard work ourselves. We. have already started working on our long-term plan to convert as much of our grass lawn as possible to pollinator gardens, using as many native plants as we can_ so we can do our part to prosy ide food and shelter to birds, butterflies and all runner of insects that are beneficial to our planet. Another reason for doing this is that native plants require significantly less water than grass, which will lessen our consumption footprint_ The proposed buildings would cast much of our back yard into shadow. This would kill our plans to create nurhuring Vollinator gardens on our own back yard. Page 243 of 336 -6- -5) Further Disconnecting Us from 'nature APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT In addition to blocking our light. the proposed buildings would also block oiu viety of the gorgeous, mature trees that use can see, not only from otu back }yard, but from our kitchen and upstairs lAindows as well- It xxill probably also block much ofoiu view of the spectacular gtmsets that fill our hearts mthJoY- Urban planners understand now that people need to feel, and be- connected to nature in carder to lead healthy. productive lies as citizens. The loss of oiu ability to see the beaxq of the natural tivorld will lead to a loss of connection to our neighbourhood and the friendly people who live here. '4'tiTe vgll feel as if we are living in nothing more than a tenement block- overlooked by strangers. Thank you for taking the time to heal our concernsas hon'.ecat4mersand residents of the Ciro of Kitchener. We look foamy and to your response - Sincerely, From: Katie Anderl Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 3:53 PM To: Joanne 1-1111 Cc: Debbie Chapman <IDe bbie. Chapman@ kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Response to application for development at 95-101 Cecar Street South Hi Joanne, Thanks again for taking the time to submit your comments with respect to the proposal. At this point I can offer a few comments in response to the matters you identify, and I also encourage you to attend the virtual Neighbourh€aod Meeting which wiII be a great opportunity to discuss the project further (I wiII be sending on meeting invitation details shortly), With respect to your property line and fence, any development on this site could not encroach onto your property. They will need to install a fence or other visual barrier around the periphery of the site, and the conceptual site plan shows that it would be fully on their property. With respect to light pollution, should the zoning be approved, the applicant will be required to receive Site Plan approval before they could begin construction. This prc-cess provides for a detailed review of not only the building and site, but also -of matters such as engineering, l�ngLc�!Piny' and lighting. A lighting plan vtrill ensure appropriate light levels are achieved on-site, and lighting must be planned to minimize light spilling onto neighbouring properties. Light fixtures are required to 13 =4..II Crit -off which helps to reduce glare and must be dark sky + compliant:. We aim to minimize the impact a- i¢hti')¢ on neighbouring properties. Page 244 of 336 APPENDIX E — COMMUNITY INPUT City staff are continuing to review the proposed application, and we are also evaluating matters such as overlook and privacy of neighbouring properties, and the proposed reduction to the rearyard setback. Kind Regards and I'll be in touch again shortly with information about the neighbourhood meeting, Katie Page 245 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT From: Zak Hannah _ Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 12:25 PM To: Katie Anded < Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 95-101 Cedar Street Hi Katie, Thanks very much far the circulation of the Planning application affecting 95-141 Cedar St rte _ i an -1 pleased to see investment in my neighbourhood and I understand that City's desire to intensify to create additional housing units in the downtown core and within walking distance of the ION. The applicatior proposes amendments to both the Official Plan and Zoning by-law for the site. If staff and Council rilti7ately support this application, I hopethat you will ensurethat the site development is functional (i,e, setbacks, parking supply, open spaces are sufficient) and that the same rules will apply to other -acre applications in the area,. Please keep me informed of this application by providing me with the future notices of the public meeting and decision. Thanks. Zak Hanrah From: Aaron Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 2:02 PIVI To: Katie Ander) <Katie,Anderl@kitchener,ca> Cc: Richard Kelly-Ruetz <Richard,Kelly-Ruetz@kitchener.ca>; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re; Zoning Question about 95-101 Cedar Street South Hi Katie, I see and thanks for the explanation, and I will continue work with Richard on my case. For the 95-101 Cedar Street South, I don't have any specific comments with respect to the proposed developments ackgallyl_I would like to see it get approved since it brings jabs to our local community/economy and helps with current housing shortage problems, Thanks Aaron Page 246 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT From: Irene Brenner Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 3:15 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie,Anderl kitchener.ca>, Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chap man(@kitchener,cs }; thawkins rrrhbcIalan.ccm Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments Re, 95 - 101 Cedar St. South Hello Katie: My husband and I live at — and are concerned about two things with the new multi- dwelling stacked townhouses. First, there is no fixed income units available when there are manyfixed income families in this neighbourhood who will net be able to access these units. There is a huge need for law income/fixed-income housing in this city, especially in the downtown core. Theshould demand a percentage of units being provided for low/fixed income families: of every development being built. Second is the transportation issues that will likely happen once it is guilt. I read the transportation report and see that the developers are using the 2014 figures of Peak time traffic flaws. The 2021 fiigures were not re eva nt because so marry people are working from home due to the pandemic. What veas not considered is the ION track on Charles Street that opened in 2019. Since that time many vehicles are turning South up the Cedar St hill since they can't turn south onto Madison, or EU St.'s. Drivers are also not allowed to turn left at King St. onto Frederick/Benton St. There have Leen a lot more drivers coming up Ceda r St to access Courtland. It is unlikelythat City council will consider adding a stop light at Cedar St. and Courtland since there is already a light at Madison and Courtland. It was noted that the speed limit is SDkm/hour. Perhaps that could be slowed to 30km/Lr-for safety as vehicles come to the top of the hill. The corner at Cedar and Church has major blind spats due to the hill. Another suggestion is having a four way stop put in at Cedar and Church to slow traffic, but still kelp it moving. ---- do hope that you will share these concerns with the appropriate people involved, Thank you, Irene Brenner & Jeffrey Honey Page 247 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT Frorn: Katie Anderl Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 3:45 PIM To: Irene Brenner Debbie Chapman <Deb~ lie,---l7al,,man•�kittiliener,ca>o thawkins@rnhbcplan.cc)m C ; Dave Se I I e r < Dave.Se I ler@ kit,chener.ea> Subject: RE: Comments Ref 95 -101 Oedar St. South Good Afternoon Irene, Thanks for providing your comments with res*ct to the proposal, I appreciate your thoughts about affordability of housing in the Com. While we don't currently have the authority tO require affordable housing units, we can explore affordability with the developer as vire continue to review and consider the development proposal. City Transportation Services are also reviewing this application and I have copied Dave in our Transportation Services division so that he can consider your feedback in his review. While separate from this application, there will he some changes coming to Cedar Street this coming year. As park of the City's planned improvements to the downtown cycling grid (approved in 2020). Cedar Street is planned to be changed to a one-way street from Weber, thrcugl' t -)e dc -v r3town, to Church Street, and two-way on -street cycling lanes will be added (like the retient c -ho nges on Joseph 5t). As part of this work, I understand that a stop sign will be added at Cedar 0-1d ChLirch St-ee" You can learn more about the changes here: https;/jwww.engagewr.ca/downtoa %,n-c-,+:-ling-gf'd , Your comments will be considered and summarized in the following way's; + In the preparation of a'What Vire heard' summary r through staffs planning analysis; and + In a report to Council. We will be scheduling a neighbourhood meeting for this proposal at the end of Varch, and I expect I w-11 be able to send out meeting invitations next +week. I will add YOU to Our circulation list so that you wil l continue to receive notices of upcoming n-ieet-ngs, Kind Regards, Katie Page 248 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT From: Katie Anderl Sent: Thuirsday, February 24, 2022 4:38 PM To: E Debbie Chapman <Debbie.0 liapman kitchener. a>; thawkins@rnhbcplan.com Cc: Dave Seller <Dave,Sellerkitchener.ca> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 95-101 Cedar St S Safety Concern Good Afternoon Elisabetka, Thank you for providing your comment= v ith respect to the proposed application. I will add you to the circulation list so you v;ill receive not1ce o' upcom ing meetings. A virtual neighbourhood meeting will be scheduled fo. he end of Nr arch and I v -;ill be sending out notices shortly. have copied Dave, one of the Citjrs Tramportatior Planners, on my response to you, so that he is also aware of your concerns. My understanding is that a step s -gr will be added on Cedar at Church 5t as part of the planned improvements to Cedar Stree this yesr, This ,..ill help the transition from a ane -way to a two-way street and will ailsc help slovv traffic. Your comments will be considered and summarized in the following ways: In the preparation of a `What we heard' sum mart' r During my Planning analysis; and In a recommendation report to Council. Kind Regards, Katie Katie Anderl Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200x7987 I TTY 1�1366-969-9994 I katie_anderlftitchener_ca From: E G Seri: Thursday, February 24, 2022 12:48 PM To: Katie Anded <Katie.Anderl P kitchener.ca>; Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chap man @ kitchener,ca>; thawkins@mhb-cplan.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] 95-101 Cedar St S Safety Concern Hello, First I would like to say that I'm glad that not all neer housing developments are tall condo buildings. I think this will be a perfect example of other options and welcome it tothe neighborhood. I do not tnink that more than one parking spot per unit is necessary, we should be encouraging use o' the conver ient transit system located down the street. The additional parking should instea=d be turned into common green space so that the residents have a place to relax and form community connections. Second Cedar street at Church street is an incredibly dangerous intersection already and I am concerned about increased vehicle traffic. The fact that Church st has stop signs but not Cedar seems reversed tram Page 249 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT the ideal. When you go toturn off of Church street you cannot see dcwr either end of Cedar, especialIy if there is snow. This leads to many close calls (I personally have experienced 3 su-,h incidents this year already) and numerous accidents. Given that Church st is novc a dedicated bike street I think it v ould be hest to putstop signs on Cedar, sothat drivers cannotspeed up the hill while blird to potential traffic. By removing the stop signs on Church cyclists and pedestrians will not only have right -of way and be aisle to cross Cedar more quickly and safely, but it will allow cars turning onto Cedar to he seen by oncomirg vehicles and reduce accidents. If this situation isn't changed it is only a matter of time before a pedestrian or cyclist is hit or killed by a car unable to see properly over the apex of the hill on Ceda street. I knov., that there are concerns about speed along Church street and think that a speed bump near Peter or Ebb streetwould be a great traffic -calming method to supportthe removal of the stop sigrs on Ch Lirvh. I have lived on Church street for about 5 years now and have always felt unsafe near the Church/Cedar irtersection. Whether on fact, bike, or car the fact that drivers can gran it over the hill, while invisible to those at the intersection, leaves myself and many others feeling anxious and unsafe. With these new townhouses there will Likely be an increased number of children {given the proximity to multiple schools) and I think it is time to take the safety of our community more seriously before tragedy occurs. Thank you for your time, and I look for -ward to a more lively and safer neighborhood! Elisabetta Page 250 of 336 APPENDIX E —COMMUNITY INPUT Froin:INoel McNarnara Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 9:15 PM To: Katie Anderi <Katie.Anderl P kitchener.ca>e Debbie Chaprnan <Debbie.Chap man kitchener,ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 95-101 Cedar Hi Katie, Just following up from tonight's meetirg. Can you confirm if the special regulation does in fact propose a reduction in required parking spaces? I was Bornev, hat confu=:ee by the planner's comment that they do meetthe requirements for parking spaces ,o; ith a total of 30, i.e,, 27 for residents and 3 for visitors. But isthis not a reduction from what would norma Ily be required for a 24 -unit multiple dwelling on land zoned R-7? Can you confirm what would be required Ander rsormal circumstances? I had also hoped to hear how snow removal is expected to impact available parking spaces. Can you comment? I don't believe parking would be such an issue if on -street parking was permitted along Cedar St. Unfortunately, it is not permitted (nor stopping for that matter) precisely because the road is narrow, the hill is steep and visibility is poor. Therefore, we would we would really like to be assured that what is ultimately built does not make the matter worse. Thank you, Neel From: Katie Anderl <lCatie.Anderlkitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, fti.+larch 30, 2022 1:59 PM To: Noel Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapm,anPkitc.hener.ca> Cc: Dave Seller <Dave.Sell erRkitchener,ca> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 95-101 Cedar Hi Noel, Thanks for attending the meeting last night and for your questions and comments— I have cc'd Dave in Transportation on your comments so that he can consider your concerns with respectto on -street stopping and loading concerns as we continue to review the application. I can confirm that the applicant is not seeking a reduction in the number of parking spaces overall, The current zoning by-law requires 1.25 spaces per unit far a multipie dwelling (24 * 1.25 = 30) and of those 20% are required to be reservedisigned asvisitor parking (6 spaces}. They are proposing (and have illustrated on their site plan) 30 parking spaces. They are proposing that 27 of these are for residents and that 3 be signed/reserved for visitors. I have attached a copy of the concept site plan for your information, You ,^will see that they have labelled an area along the south property line as snow storage area. The details of the site deign —ay be further refined, but we certainly will require that they demonstrate how snow removal anc _C -.crape wi I be handled on the site. Page 251 of 336 APPENDIX E -COMMUNITY INPUT Find Regards, Katie From: Cave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 7:13 AM To: Noel McNamara Cc: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anoerl lc-,kitcherc-r.ca.-f Debbie ,-_hapman <Debbie.Chapman kitchener.ca,- Su bj e ct: a-Subject: 95-101 Cedar 5t S - on -street parking stopping Hi Noel, Thank you for your questions regarding Cedar Street South and your participation in this process. I believe permitting on -street parking along Cedar Street South would be an issue, due to the roadway's narrow width and existing hill. You are correct that there are parking prohibitions along Cedar Street South, wwhich occupy both sides of the road betwveen Courtland Avenue East and Charles Street East. As noted bythe City of Kitchener Planning department, the applica rVt is providing the required amount of parking (30 spaces) forthe site, however, the applicant is proposing to reduce the visitor parking by 50% from 6 space to 3 spaces and increase the residential parking component. I mentioned at the NIM on March 29, 2022, based on concerns from residents, that the applicant would consider increasing the visitor parking to 4 (15�i) parking spaces, which Transportation Services feel is reasonable. When we reach the site plan stage of this process, the amount of on-site visitor parking being proposed by the applicant will be brought forward again. emailed the City of Kitchener By-law Enforcement department and inquired about any on -street parking/stopping issues along Cedar Street South between Courtland Avenue East and Charles Street East and I was irformed that on March 23, 2022, aticket was issued, however, there haven't been many tickets issued alorg Cedar Stree South, By-law officers have been made aware of the concerns by re=idents retarding son -street parkirg,'stopping along Cedar Street South. Included is a link to the City of Kitchener Bylaws and enforcement - City of Kitchenerwehl page=h'0L1Id you wish to contact them and file a report regarding cin -street parking/stopping. YOU can also call 515- 741-234.5 to report an issue or ask us a question, Dare Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services. I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext, 7364 1 TTY 1-866-969-4004 1 dave.seller(Mkitchen er.ca Page 252 of 336 Appendix C — Newspaper Notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING'%NEN- / for a development in your neighbourhood 95-101 Cedar Street Southrrc.i-LI Concept Drawing AM In MuLtiple dwelling FSR 1.46 RedLIC601-6 to Stacked Townhouses 4 Storeys `_=ethack_ Have Your Voice Heard! Date: August 8, 2022 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, find meeting details or to appear as a delegation, visit: kitchener.ca/meetings To learn more about this project, Including information on your appeal rights, visit: wwwAitchenenca/ Planningpplications or contact: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x 7987 katie.anderl' ,kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener has received applications to amend the Official flan and Zoning By, law to facilitate the development of the lands at 9 5 101 Cedar Street South with a multiple residential development consisting of 24 stacked townhouse units. The lands are proposed to be redesignated from `Law Rise Conservation' to 'Low [density Multiple Residential' with a Special Policy Area and to be rezoned from 'R 5' to 'R 7'' with a site-specific provision to permit a multiple residential use. a Floor Space Ratio (RSR) of 1.46 and a height of 4 storeys, with an additional partially below grade parking level. and reduced building setbacks. Page 253 of 336 follows: DSD -2022-356 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, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — MCD St. Michael's Inc., St. George Inc., Christin George Sokkar, Hany Ayad, Georgiet Hana Mikhail Hana and Nabil Aziz Ayad Elserafy — 95 - 101 Cedar Street South) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as Schedule Numbers 119 and 120 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Residential Five Zone (R-5) to Residential Seven Zone (R-7) with Special Regulation Provision 779R. 2. Schedule Numbers 119 and 120 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Appendix "D" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 779 thereto as follows: 779. Notwithstanding Sections 4.2, 5.6, 6.1 and 41.2 of this By-law within the lands zoned R- 7 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Schedule Numbers 119 and 120 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply to a Multiple Dwelling: a) The minimum lot width for a lot containing a multiple dwelling with more than 3 dwelling units shall be 36 metres. b) The maximum building height for a multiple dwelling which includes partially below grade structured parking shall be 16 metres. Any multiple dwelling not incorporating structured parking shall have a maximum height of 14 metres. c) The maximum floor space ratio for a multiple dwelling which includes structured parking shall be 1.46. d) The minimum front yard setback for lands included on Appendix `H' shall be: • 3.0 metres for any portion of the building not exceeding 4.0 metres in height, Page 254 of 336 DSD -2022-356 Attachment "B" • 5.2 metres for any portion of a building exceeding 4.0 metres in height, provided however that 31d and 4t" floor building projections are permitted to have a setback of 3.95 metres. For purposes of this regulation "building height" shall mean the vertical distance between the lowest finished grade elevation along the lot line related to such yard at that point closest to the building and the horizontal extension of the uppermost point of the building. e) The minimum rear yard setback for any portion of a building not exceeding 3.0 metres in height shall be 3.5 metres. f) The minimum side yard setback along the northerly lot line: • 1.5 metres for any portion of a building not exceeding 9.0 metres in height, and • 3.0 metres for any portion of a building exceeding 9.0 metres in height. g) Dwelling units located on the ground floor are not required to have an exclusive use patio area. h) Stairs, access ramps and porches having height greater than 0.6 metres above finished grade level are permitted within the front yard and within 3.0 metres of a street line. i) That a "driveway visibility triangle" shall be measured from the point of intersection of a street line and the edge of a driveway a distance of 3 metres from the street line and 4.5 metres from the edge of the driveway." 4. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _ (95-101 Cedar Street South) 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 255 of 336 Appendix D - Department and Agency Comments City of Kitchener Heritage Planning — OPA/ZBA Comment Form Project Address: 95-101 Cedar Street South File Number: OPA21/013/C/KA, ZBA21/022/C/KA Comments Of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Deeksha Choudhry Email: deeksha.choudhry@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Date of Comments: June 17, 2022 Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the following documents that have informed the comments below: • Urban Design Brief for the proposed development at 95-101 Cedar Street South dated November 2021 • Proposed Elevations, renderings and floor plans for the proposed development • Updated elevations and viewshed analysis dated May 2022 Heritage Status The subject properties municipally addressed as 95-101 Cedar Street South are located within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) as identified in the 2014 Kitchener CHL Study. The City of Kitchener is undertaking a detailed review of the land use and planning framework in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood, and is preparing a new Secondary Plan for the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek area which includes the subject lands. This planning process includes consideration for the conservation of cultural heritage resources including attributes associated with the surrounding CHL and built heritage resources Through Planning staff's work on the Secondary Plan and public engagement, the properties municipally addressed as 97 & 101 Cedar Street South have been identified as properties of specific CHL interest. These properties were identified given the contribution they make to the viewshed from the top of Cedar Hill. The view atop Cedar Hill looking southwest affords an unobstructed view for several kilometres toward the City's countryside and well beyond the limits of the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood. These properties, however, are not protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 256 of 336 Heritage Planning Comments Since the subject properties do not have heritage status, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was not required. Instead, staff requested a section within the Urban Design Brief commenting on potential impacts to the identified views from the top of the hill and how they should be mitigated. Heritage Planning Staff have reviewed the Urban Design brief that was submitted in support of these applications. The Urban Design Brief concluded that: • The proposed development respects the orientation, setback and design of the buildings on the neighborhood, and provides a contemporary but compatible development in the neighborhood. • The original design does not adversely impact the views from Cedar Street. Initially the building was setback 6.5 metres from the street. However, after staff comments and comments from the public, the revised design moves the building 1.3 metres closer to the street, to 5.2 metres. Furthermore, the revised design also has a inclusion of doors and stairs entrances along the Cedar Street entrance to improve the pedestrian scale of the development and make it more consistent with the adjacent developments. To accommodate the changes in design, un updated viewshed analysis was conducted to ensure that the revised changes would not have an adverse impact on the viewshed at the top of Cedar Hill. The updated viewshed analysis has confirmed that the difference in setback will not have an adverse impact on the view along Cedar Street. Heritage planning staff are generally in agreement with this conclusion. Staff do encourage that the materials used in the proposed development be primarily brick to ensure compatibility with the existing character of the area. Heritage Planning staff anticipate the following conditions to be included as part of the Site Plan process: • Heritage planning staff require drawings of all four (4) elevations for review and approval; and • A material sample board be provided for review and approval by heritage planning staff. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 257 of 336 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 95-101 Cedar Street South Application Type: OPA and ZBA Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) — City of Kitchener Commenter's name: Gaurang Khandelwal Email: gaurang.khandelwal@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7611 Written Comments Due: February 10, 2022 Date of comments: February 8, 2022 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application: • Sustainability Statement — 95-101 Cedar Street South, prepared by MHBC, dated November 11, 2021 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to redevelop the subject lands with two four-story stacked townhouse buildings totaling 24 residential units, regarding sustainability and energy conservation and provide the following: • Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is advanced, going forward all developments will need to include robust energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo) strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target. • Based on my review of the supporting documentation, the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments can be supported as a number of sustainable measures have been proposed such as: o Electric vehicle charging stations being provided for resident use o Buildings designed and certified to achieve Energy Star requirements and reaching more than 5-R values in wall insulation o Low consumption plumbing fixtures o Roof structure designed to support future PV installation • Additionally, a Sustainability Statement (as per the City's Terms of Reference) will be required as part of a complete Site Plan Application. It can build upon the information already provided and can further explore and/or confirm which additional energy reduction measures are best suited to the site, building and development. Potential items for consideration are: o Community/ common gardens and urban agriculture 1IPage Page 258 of 336 o On-site composting o Use of alternative water supply and demand management systems such as rainwater harvesting and grey water reuse o Sustainable sourcing of construction and building materials 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. 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 '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 259 of 336 From: Dave Seller Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 9:37 AM To: Katie Anderl Subject: OPA/ZBA comments: 95-101 Cedar Street South City of Kitchener Application Type: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments Application: OPA21/022/C/KA & ZBA21/013/C/KA Project Address: 95-101 Cedar Street South Comments of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 Date of Comments: February 7, 2022 a. Transportation Service have no concerns with the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments being proposed. b. After reviewing the Traffic Impact Brief (October 26, 2021) submitted by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd., Transportation Services offer the following comments. This site is proposing 24 stacked townhouse units with an estimated trip generation of 8 AM and 11 PM peak hour vehicle trips, with one access point servicing the site along the Cedar Street South frontage. A review of the site access point was completed for the 2026 Total Traffic Operations scenario. The site access vehicle turning movements were expressed in average vehicle delay - Level of Service (LOS) and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Under the forecasted 2026 Total Traffic Operations, the site access is operating with a LOS A and v/c ratio of 0.01 in the AM and PM peak hours. In either 2026 peak period scenario, there is acceptable vehicle delay and sufficient vehicle capacity along Cedar Street South and the site access. Cedar Street South is classified as a Neighbourhood Minor Collector which typically functions between 2000 to 5000 vehicle per day. Based on the 2026 Total Traffic Operations, Cedar Street South is estimated to operate with 2000 vehicle per day, which is at the lower range of daily traffic for this classification of roadway. A stopping sight distance analysis was competed along Cedar Street South at the site access utilizing TAC guidelines and based on a design speed of 60km/h, an 85m stopping sight distance was determined. The analysis indicates a shortfall of 36m in stopping sight distance. However, based on the existing configuration of the roadway, there are other site access points along Cedar Street South with similar shortfalls. Also, it should be noted that there is minimal vehicular traffic exiting the site onto Cedar Street South, which is similar to existing access points in the area. A left turn lane analysis was completed along Cedar Street South at the access point for the 2026 Total Traffic Operations and it was determined that a left turn lane is not warranted. Page 260 of 336 Therefore, based on the analysis and conclusions provided in Paradigm's report, Transportation Services supports their findings. Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller@kitchener.ca �7 Page 261 of 336 From: Mike Seiling Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 4:53 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) Building; no comments. From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 4:33 PM To: Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; 'K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron' <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiline@kitchener.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <plannine@wrdsb.ca> Cc: MMohr <MMohr@reeionofwaterloo.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) Hello, This is just a friendly reminder that the comment period has concluded and to please forward any comments you may have to my attention. Information is available at the following link: https://app2.kitchener.ca/ADDDocs/Open Data/AMANDADataSets/Supporting Documents List 64 1614.pd Thanks, Katie Page 262 of 336 From: Eric Riek Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 1:25 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) Hi Katie, I have reviewed the submitted Functional Servicing Report and SWM Report and have no concerns with the ZBA/OPA proceeding from an engineering perspective. Any questions, please advise. Eric From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 11:58 AM To: Eric Riek <Eric.Riek@kitchener.ca> Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 3:07 PM To: _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@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: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) Please see attached. Additional documentation is saved in AMANDA (folders 21-134393 and 21- 134397) for internal staff reference & ShareFile for external agencies. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Page 263 of 336 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 0006OOmOG Page 264 of 336 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 95-101 Cedar St Owner: St. Pola Group Application: OPA21/022/C/KA and ZBA21/013/C/KA Comments Of: Parks And Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Feb 08 2022 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑X No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: a. Urban Design Brief — MHBC document dated Nov 2021; b. Site Layout and Floor Plans Samer Nessiem drawings A1.1 -A1.6 rev #1 dated 2021-11-01; c. City of Kitchener Circulation Letter dated Jan 14 2022; 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the above noted documentation to support OPA21/022/C/KA and ZBA21/013/C/KA to rezone the lands from Residential Five Zone (R-5) to Residential Seven Zone (R-7) with Special Provisions for the following: • To permit a minimum front yard of 6.1 metres instead of 6.75 metres • To permit a side yard setback of 2.377 metres on the northern side instead of 6.0 metres • To permit a rear yard setback of 5.45 metres instead of 7.5 metres. • To permit a parking rate of 1.16 spaces per unit, visitor parking at 10% of required parking Parks and Cemeteries have no concerns with the proposed OPA and ZBA 3. Comments on Submitted Documents a. Street Trees will be required along Cedar St S as part of a future Site Plan application and with the reduced front yard additional soil cell infrastructure may be required. b. Parkland Dedication will be required as a condition of a future Site Plan application 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy As per Section 8.C.2 — Urban Forests of the Official Plan ... o policy 8.C.2.16., the City requires the preparation and submission of a tree management plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available on the City's Website), as a condition of a development application. o policy 8.C.2.6., the City will incorporate existing and/or new trees into the streetscape or road rights-of-way and encourage new development or redevelopment to incorporate, protect and A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community aw of 336 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form conserve existing healthy trees and woodlands in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in Section 13 (Landscape and Natural Features) of the Urban Design Manual (UDM) and the Development Manual. o Please see UDM Part C, Section 13 and www.kitchener.ca/treemanagement for detailed submission requirements • City of Kitchener Parkland Dedication Policy • City of Kitchener Development Manual • PARTS Central Plan • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Parkland Dedication Policy • Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law • Parks Strategic Plan • Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan • Urban Design Manual 5. Anticipated Fees: The parkland dedication requirement for this development proposal will be deferred at the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications and 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. Parkland dedication will be taken as cash -in -lieu of land. Dedication requirements are subject to the Parkland Dedication Policy current at the time of a formal site plan application. Please be advised that the City of Kitchener Parkland Dedication Policy is currently under review Street Trees will be required along Cedar St S as part of a future Site Plan application A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Paaw "299 of 336 N* Region of Waterloo Katie Anderl Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Anderl, 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: D17/2/21013 C14/2/21022 June 14, 2022 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/013 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/022 95-101 Cedar Street MHBC Planning (Trevor Hawkins) on behalf of St. Pola Group Inc. CITY OF KITCHENER MHBC Planning on behalf of St. Pola Group Inc. has submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 95-101 Cedar Street in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with two four -storey stacked townhouse buildings totaling 24 residential units and 30 parking stalls provided on site. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Conservation on Map 11 of the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan and the applicant has proposed to redesignate the lands from the Low Rise Conservation Designation to the Low Density Multiple Residential to permit a maximum FSR of 1.0 (whereas a max. FSR of 0.75 is permitted). The subject lands are zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) Zone to Residential Seven Zone (R-7) with special provisions to permit a maximum front yard of 6.1 metres (whereas a front yard of 6.75 m is required); to permit a side yard setback of 2.377 metres on the norther side (whereas 6.Om is required), to permit a rear yard setback of 5.45m (whereas 7.5m is required) and to permit a parking rate of 1.16 spaces/unit (whereas 1.25 spaces/unit is required) Document Number: 4104668 Version: 1 Page 1 of 4 Page 267 of 336 and a visitor parking rate of 10% (whereas 20% of the total required parking is required). The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following at this time: Regional Comments Consistency with Provincial Legislation and Regional Official Plan Conformity The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the site is located in the Major Transit Station Area of the City of Kitchener and is designated Low Rise Conservation Designation in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Planned Community Structure: The Urban Area designation of the ROP has the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support major growth and social and public health services (ROP Section 2.D). The ROP supports a Planned Community Structure based on a system of Nodes, Corridors and other areas that are linked via an integrated transportation system (ROP objective 2.1 and 2.2). Components of the Planned Community Structure include the Urban Area, Nodes, Corridors and other development areas including Urban Growth Centres (UGC's) and Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA's). Most of the Region's growth will occur within the Urban Area and Township Urban Area designations, with a substantial portion of this growth directed to the existing Built -Up Area of the Region through reurbanization. Focal points for reurbanization include Urban Growth Centres, Township Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes (ROP Section 2.13). Regional staff acknowledge that the subject lands are located within 500-800 m of multiple Stage 1 ION stops and is located in the Regional Council Endorsed Kitchener Market Major Transit Station Area (endorsed by Regional Council through the ongoing Regional Municipal Comprehensive Review). The applicant has proposed a higher density development with a reduced parking rate on site. Higher density development with a reduced parking is supported within Major Transit Station Areas. Stationary Noise: The stationary noise study entitled "Stationary Noise Impact Study, 97-101 Cedar Street South, Kitchener, Ontario" prepared by JJ Acoustic Engineering Ltd. dated July 26, 2021 and an update received June 13, 2022, which includes minor edits has been reviewed by Regional staff. The report concludes that predicted noise levels at all on-site points of reception (due to off-site noise sources) are below the MECP's NPC -300 noise guideline sound level limits for a Class 1 acoustical environment for the daytime and nighttime periods. Document Number: 4104668 Version: 1 Page 2 of 4 Page 268 of 336 The report also concludes there are no significant on-site noise sources that may impact off-site sensitive receptors. The report notes mechanical equipment for the buildings is similar to that of a single-family home and that noise is considered to be insignificant. The applicant has advised that Packaged Terminal Air Conditioning (PTAC) units will not be used for this project. Based on the above, the impact of on-site noise sources on on-site sensitive receptors is also expected to be insignificant and no mitigation is recommended. Staff concur with the conclusions and recommendations of the report. Housing Services The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. The Region's 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan contains an affordable housing target for Waterloo Region. The target is for 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 to be affordable to low and moderate income households. Staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site. Staff recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit (based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan), the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $385,500 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 $576,347 regional market area *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2021). In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house price is $576,347. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit (based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan), the average rent is compared to the east expensive or: A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual household income for low and moderate income $1,470 renter households Document Number: 4104668 Version: 1 Page 3 of 4 Page 269 of 336 A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent Bachelor: $950 (AMR) in the regional market area 1 -Bedroom: $1,134 2 -Bedroom: $1,356 3 -Bedroom: $1,538 4+ Bedroom: $3,997 *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2021) In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above. Fees By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the review fees of $6,900.00. General Comments: Based on the above, Regional staff have no objection to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment. 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. 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. St. Pola Group Inc. (Owner) Trevor Hawkins, MHBC Planning (Applicant) Document Number: 4104668 Version: 1 Page 4 of 4 Page 270 of 336 From: Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 2:17 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) Hi Katie, This is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment. Regards, Trevor Heywood Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority theywood(a)grand river. ca www.grandriver.ca I Connect with us on social media From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 3:18 PM To: _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; 'Peds' <vped@feds.ca>; Planning <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@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: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) Please see attached. Additional documentation is saved in AMANDA (folders 21-136167 & 21-136168) for internal staff reference & ShareFile for external agencies. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant 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 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca Page 271 of 336 Page 272 of 336 From: planninganddevelopment <planninganddevelopment@bell.ca> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 11:29 AM To: Katie Anderl Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) Hi Katie, Bell Canada doesn't have any comments for this OPA/ZBA. Ryan Courville Access Network Provisioning Manager I Planning and Development C: 416-570-6726 100 Borough Dr. FI. 5 Toronto, Ontario dw From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: February 15, 2022 4:33 PM To: CA - Circulations <CA.Circulations@wsp.com>; 'K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron' <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: MMohr <MMohr@regionofwaterloo.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) Hello, This is just a friendly reminder that the comment period has concluded and to please forward any comments you may have to my attention. Information is available at the following link: httr)s://app2.kitchener.ca/ADDDocs/Open Data/AMANDADataSets/Supporting Documents List 64 1614.pd Thanks, Katie NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise subject to restricted disclosure under applicable law. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on, this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized or intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. You are receiving this communication because you are listed as a current WSP contact. Should you have any questions regarding WSP's electronic communications policy, please consult our Anti -Spam Commitment at www.wsp.com/casl. For any concern or if you believe you should not be receiving this message, please forward this message to caslcompliancea-wsp.com so that we can promptly address your request. Note that not all messages sent by WSP qualify as commercial electronic messages. AVIS : Ce message, incluant tout fichier I'accompagnant (<< le message v), peut contenir des renseignements ou de ('information privilegies, confidentiels, proprietaires ou a divulgation restreinte en vertu de la loi. Ce message est destine a I'usage exclusif du/des destinataire(s) voulu(s). Toute utilisation non permise, divulgation, lecture, reproduction, modification, diffusion ou distribution est interdite. Si vous avez Page 273 of 336 requ ce message par erreur, ou que vous n'etes pas un destinataire autorise ou voulu, veuillez en aviser 1'expediteur immediatement et detruire Ie message et toute copie electronique ou imprimee. Vous recevez cette communication car vous faites partie des contacts de WSP. Si vous avez des questions concernant la politique de communications electroniques de WSP, veuillez consulter notre Engagement anti- pourriel au www.wsp.com/Icap. Pour toute question ou si vous croyez que vous ne devriez pas recevoir ce message, priere de Ie transferer au co nformite Ica p(cDwsp.com afin que nous puissions rapidement traiter votre demande. Notez que ce ne sont pas tous les messages transmis par WSP qui constituent des messages electroniques commerciaux. External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints Page 274 of 336 From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 3:47 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) Good Afternoon Katie, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject 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 shall include the following wording in the site plan agreement to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: "in order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by 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 and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." 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: Friday, January 14, 2022 3:18 PM To: _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; 'Feds' <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplannine@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; 'K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron' <Rcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper < Linda. Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiline@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 Page 275 of 336 <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: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderlftitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (95-101 Cedar Street South) 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 is saved in AMANDA (folders 21-136167 & 21-136168) for internal staff reference & ShareFile for external agencies. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca 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 276 of 336 PLANNING DEPARTMENT via email Katie Anderl Senior Planner katie.anderl@kitchen er.ca March 11, 2022 Re: Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment Application File No.: ZBA21/013/C/KA and OPA21/022/C/KA Municipality: City of Kitchener Location: 95-101 Cedar Street Owner/Applicant: St. Pola Group Inc. Dear Katie, The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the above -noted Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment Application that proposes a four -storey stacked townhouse building totalling 24 residential units. The WRDSB offers the following comments: Student Accommodation At this time, the subject lands are within the boundaries of the following WRDSB schools: • Suddaby Public School (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6); • Courtland Avenue Public School (Grade 7 to Grade 8); and • Cameron Heights Collegiate Institute (Grade 9 to Grade 12). Student accommodation pressures currently exist at secondary schools within the City of Kitchener. The WRDSB's 2020-2030 Long -Term Accommodation Plan projects long-term over -utilization of Cameron Heights Collegiate Institute. Interim student accommodation measures, including portable classrooms, are presently on-site and may be required until an alternative accommodation solution is in place. Alternatively, the WRDSB may conduct a boundary study or designate this property as a "Development Area" and assign it to Holding Schools before occupancy or sales. Student Transportation The WRDSB supports active transportation, and we ask that pedestrians be considered in the review of all development applications to ensure the enhancement of safety and connectivity. Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR)'s school buses will not travel privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick-up/drop-off students. Transported students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. STSWR may have additional comments about student pick-up point(s) placement on municipal right-of-ways. Education Development Charges Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the WRDSB's Education Development Charges By-law, 2021 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Education Development Charges for these developments prior to issuance of a building permit. Waterloo Region District School Board 51 A rdelt Avenue Kitchener ON, N2C 2R5 T: 519 570-0003 t w: wrdsb_ca Page 277 of 336 2 of 2 The WRDSB requests to be circulated on any subsequent submissions on the subject lands and reserves the right to comment further on this application. If you have any questions about the comments provided, don't hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, #/- Lauren Agar Manager of Planning lauren_agar@wrdsb.ca .004. a 0 Page 278 of 336 Z Z J J CL a J a� �a � LL o w O- Lu N W LUD0 O Lu o H Z V = 2 L 0a °m F- U W z <1Z ° - C ° o a -a `� � cu c a co a� o - L (B 0 U) °� x L -0 c m Q o a ° c o a0i 00 ° ami ° � U � C = 'fA U o 0 0 (n >, '� -t 0 0 U) }� d U 0 U ° °� a� Q a� c co U 0 '- N ° 0 L i N L E N U cn U) E 0 0 Q- cu d T U Q° Q D D o L c 0 J 0 cn a� � a� a� E v ° c ca E J 0 0 0 °� o x n o a a� 0 E° o J J J J Z Z O m (n d (n U QLL "� j;j;j; .�i = awn `C � L 4+ +L • �� t t t RIA 1612 L - ;l,1 -1!-1:.1::1.1._Y•,',�.4'a��•4�yC•ry.•1.: .4'a�h. yl•1.•i.: y�a��•h. yY ;. L k LikV t ITITH l�'lti l\rti � k+ti. �' L l�ti-��;'. L=� W^kr i`�'LrE �✓.:: � J j: •.j:J: � L �_ . L :j:j:j:j: b�t6- ^ t; k'' /;:• ��:l:l:JjJ:I :1:11:.:1: �,L`_ � •'l 1:k�1:1: ,1,, l:l: 1:1 � „' :j: .. ..._ccc - 1 JN. .J J • :j: : . S 0 w U) w 0 o N N O U) N w Of C:) N O Z 0 w U Q U o z I a U NCl) N LLm.l _ 0 0 N Q Q ° z LLI Z a N CO O ;°} ZI w ofQ Q J Z z LU W U CZ G 0 W z D Z w Z W LU 2i Q U Q 06 Q 4.j ui ui z Q Yw JJ UUx U O > n w J (DQ w U J Q V z u z Ua z O LCL O uio O 0 w U) w 0 o N N O U) N w Of C:) N O Z 0 w U Q U o z �Q U)ZLL �QQ xx� U�w w U CO z LLI Z a af 0 CO ;°} w ofQ Q J O p N - Q Q W Q (D) �Q-i U Q)- Fn W cjQz T- O = Zxo U Y)ofQ 06 rn =0Q UUx LO w J (DQ 0 owl UO Of W O Z Of z Of o a w ZZO W O w <i r- 00 N Z d' 9 O L ij y z uJ N N W O O Of N O z W 0 W W U p N N O 0 H O z Z U LLI O Q a Of Q J J J J N O ON = w N WwO QQQQ J JZZ0 � WLLI L6 ZZa d'Z ZZ H W H Z OOX W ZZ W Y 00 co N O Z W W W W z z O N g W z w O O z < U a ;w� �000Z0�zDz� wWN0Z LLJ NLLI Uz } cn N c7 fn LL w� UU Of Of W- Lu 0 W ZO O~�� z Z 00 U x> Z w Q ~ 0 z a m H J W U Q Q Q w J W O Z� p Z Y 0 J J J J J W-_ Z N O Z LU wQ< wOfOfW-OfU>��~ZZui �Qggggg woa0Z Q (\A La a ~ O Z Q Z W W W Q d' U` 0 z Q Z d J z z z z z af z X N O m Q A a H W af woa co000c~i��c~i�m�af Oz� �Q���cc ���z N N O =w U _ W p��cnU �ODUUQO �o�w� x �Qwwwww OoaW ~ Q^^ice m W WO�H JU�Nch W U W Z02U` NZ chZ d2af W-af d'd' Z2QU LU Z iaf 22d'O– 7Q'� Q' 97–N(h N �O �O'L . ll7 (O I� W � OULL� LL) �d U) QQWH� mUUUU�� W ---22N 2N ddafafafafaf NU)OY Q C }'Q Z 0� v IwrL LU Z W d N �►M� LU > Q�Of M M QIM O W N t� Q U) Mvoe' 7 zJJQZ / wJo WSW a a0 Q > 2 LO r ZLLI U(D N a= Z — v0 LL AA"WIF Al RON OAF ZN7� W,