The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-2022-405 - Official Plan Amendment OPA21/008/K/CD - Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/013/K/CD - 1668 King Street East - 2806399 Ontario Inc.Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: September 12, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Stevenson, Garett - Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Dumart, Craig — Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7073 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: August 9, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-405 SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment OPA21/008/K/CD Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/013/K/CD 1668 King Street East 2806399 Ontario Inc. RECOMMENDATION: That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA/21/008/0/CD for 2806399 Ontario Inc. requesting a land use designation change from "Mixed Use Corridorwith Special Policy Area V to `Mixed Use Corridor with Specific Policy Area 7' to permit a mixed use development on the lands specified and illustrated on Schedule `A', be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -2022-405 as Appendix `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/013/K/CD for 2806399 Ontario Inc. be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1, attached to Report DSD -2022-405 as Appendix `A'; and further That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4), applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/013/K/CD. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the property located at 1668 King Street East. It is planning staffs recommendation that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be approved. Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice letter to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site; o installation of two large billboards notice sign on the property; o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; o Neighbourhood Meeting held on October 21, 2021; *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 227 of 350 o postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners within 240 metres of the subject site, those who responded to the preliminary circulation; and those who attended the Neighbourhood Meeting; o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on August 19, 2022. This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the property addressed as 1668 King Street East is proposing to change the Official Plan land use designation from `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1' to `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 7' in the King Street East Secondary Plan, and to change the zoning from `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 with a Special Regulation Provision to allow for an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR); further regulate parking; regulate building setbacks and to apply a Holding Provision to require remediation of site contamination and an updated noise study. Staff recommend that the applications be approved. BACKGROUND: 2806399 Ontario Inc. has made applications to the City of Kitchener for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment proposing to change the land use designation and zoning of the lands at 1668 King Street East to permit the lands to be developed with a mixed use development consisting of two (2) towers, 22 and 23 storeys in height, each with a 8 storey podium. The proposed development includes parking located underground, internal to the buildings and on the surface of a parking deck. The lands are designated `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1' in the City of Kitchener King Street East Secondary Plan and zoned `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The existing zoning permissions permit: • a range of permitted uses, including Multiple Dwellings and a wide range of commercial and institutional uses, • a maximum building Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 4.0, • buildings with no maximum building height, • 1 parking space for each dwelling unit over 51 square metres of floor area and, • 0.165 parking spaces for dwelling units having a floor area of 51.0 square metres or less (capped at 40% of the units). Site Context The subject lands at 1668 King Street East are defined as a through lot and have frontages on King Street East and Weber Street East. The property is located near the intersection of King Street East and Montgomery Road. The subject property is irregular in shape and has a lot area of 0.7 hectares (1.74 acres) with 72 metres of frontage along King Street East and 36 metres of frontage along Weber Street East. 1668 King Street East is currently occupied by a commercial building and a large surface parking area which was formerly used by the Schwaben Club. The surrounding neighbourhood consists of a variety of uses including commercial buildings, medium -rise and high- rise residential uses, single and semi-detached dwellings, low-rise multiple dwelling buildings, and institutional buildings. Directly to the north of the property is a Secondary School (Eastwood Collegiate High School), directly to the east and west of the subject lands are commercial properties and to the south across the street of King Street East is the Rockway Gardens and landscaped open space located between King Street East and Floral Crescent. Page 228 of 350 leo F� 0"Y',t C� S F?OQI,CvvRY OR 111�191�.'-Y. I%R4�V 00 0 U BJ ECT AREA P4 ORgt cR Is Figure 1 - Location Map: 1668 King Street East REPORT: z 0 Q a LU z 0 The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with a with a mixed-use development consisting of two (2) towers, 22 and 23 storeys in height, each with a 8 storey podium. The proposed development consists of 616 residential units, 184.4 square metres of commercial/retail space located at grade, a roof top terrace on the fourth level, and 403 parking spaces located underground, internal to the building and on a surface parking deck. The proposed development includes two buildings, one of which is a 22 storey tower with an 8 storey podium located along King Street East. This building contains 313 resident units and 184.4 square metres of commercial space is proposed along King Street East on the first level. The second tower is 23 storeys in height with an 8 storey podium located along Weber Street East and contains 303 residential units. Both buildings have building stepbacks at the 8th floor and the 12th floors and are connected by the parking structure and 4th level outdoor amenity space. Through the processing of the applications, a revised development proposal was prepared to address staff and public comments. Table 1 below provides a comparison of the development concepts, figures 2 and 3 show the comparisons between the original concept site plan and the revised development concept site plan, and Figures 4 and 5 show comparison renderings of the original development proposal and the revised development proposal. Page 229 of 350 Table 1. Development Concept Comparison Table fr ebrc l p i ti r�y � F�3R➢ a I� 1 a o PARRING 112110 �'. 13200 b AMENfIY R 3R0 6900 1 I� r Figure 2 — Original Development Concept Site Plan Page 230 of 350 Original Development Concept Revised Development Concept Number of Units 616 residential units 616 residential units Parking Spaces 371 parking spaces 403 parking spaces Building Heights Two, 23 storey slab towers One 22 storey compact slab tower One 23 storey point tower Floor Space Ratio 7.2 7.2 Complies with Tall No Yes Building Guidelines Class A Bicycle 124 Class A Bicycle Parking 307 Class A Bicycle Parking Parking (indoor Spaces Spaces secure parking) Electric Vehicle 0 proposed. 123 EV ready parking stalls Ready Parking Stalls Podium Design 3 storey podium. 8 storey podium fr ebrc l p i ti r�y � F�3R➢ a I� 1 a o PARRING 112110 �'. 13200 b AMENfIY R 3R0 6900 1 I� r Figure 2 — Original Development Concept Site Plan Page 230 of 350 Figure 3 — Revised Development Concept Site Plan 0 a c+ o �� c► o 0 o ca a r O m � a a � 7iWi•:iri:rl•i■■� d Lll■.u��lu an.f �• HL& O J■ci i71■■■�I�ii.Sii��!■! a! O rn p.f� � . O fill■■1111:: ��■■■-III �. .: VIII .flllllldl�lll�ll!iIIII ns. ;pal! N.rp O Q �Mims, li lli Ili l ;. �llll N d Figure 3 — Revised Development Concept Site Plan `� a �! ` .�• r+, i� , Figure 4 — Original Development Rendering Page 231 of 350 Z � r `� a �! ` .�• r+, i� , Figure 4 — Original Development Rendering Page 231 of 350 Figure 5 — Revised Development Rendering The revised development concept includes changes in direct response to community and staff comments. The revised proposed development includes a redesign of the two towers that now complies with the City of Kitchener Design for Tall Building Guidelines, which are Council approved guidelines in the Urban Design Manual that guide and inform development applications for proposed buildings 9 storeys and greater. The original development application did not meet off site separation and had 100 percent overlook between the two towers. The revised development concept has addressed both and complies with the Design for Tall Building Guidelines. In addition to meeting the Design for Tall Building Guidelines, an 8 -storey podium is provided which is well defined and enhances the streetscape. Massing has been broken up on the towers with building stepbacks provided at the 8th floor and 12th floor which helps address shadow impacts and enhances the public realm. The revised development concept has also increased the number of onsite parking from 371 parking spaces to 403 parking spaces, increased the number of Class A bicycle parking spaces (indoor secured bicycle parking) from 124 Class A bicycle parking spaces to 307 Class A bicycle parking spaces and have added 10 Class B visitor bicycle spaces. Furthermore, 20% of the provided parking (123 spaces) will be designed as Electric Vehicle Ready car parking stalls. To facilitate the redevelopment of 1668 King Street East with the proposed development concept, an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment are proposed to change the land use designation and zoning of the subject lands as the existing Official Plan policies and zoning permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 4.0. The lands are currently designated `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area Vin the City of Kitchener King Street East Secondary Plan and zoned `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone' (MU -3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. Page 232 of 350 bw Figure 5 — Revised Development Rendering The revised development concept includes changes in direct response to community and staff comments. The revised proposed development includes a redesign of the two towers that now complies with the City of Kitchener Design for Tall Building Guidelines, which are Council approved guidelines in the Urban Design Manual that guide and inform development applications for proposed buildings 9 storeys and greater. The original development application did not meet off site separation and had 100 percent overlook between the two towers. The revised development concept has addressed both and complies with the Design for Tall Building Guidelines. In addition to meeting the Design for Tall Building Guidelines, an 8 -storey podium is provided which is well defined and enhances the streetscape. Massing has been broken up on the towers with building stepbacks provided at the 8th floor and 12th floor which helps address shadow impacts and enhances the public realm. The revised development concept has also increased the number of onsite parking from 371 parking spaces to 403 parking spaces, increased the number of Class A bicycle parking spaces (indoor secured bicycle parking) from 124 Class A bicycle parking spaces to 307 Class A bicycle parking spaces and have added 10 Class B visitor bicycle spaces. Furthermore, 20% of the provided parking (123 spaces) will be designed as Electric Vehicle Ready car parking stalls. To facilitate the redevelopment of 1668 King Street East with the proposed development concept, an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment are proposed to change the land use designation and zoning of the subject lands as the existing Official Plan policies and zoning permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 4.0. The lands are currently designated `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area Vin the City of Kitchener King Street East Secondary Plan and zoned `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone' (MU -3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. Page 232 of 350 The owner is proposing to change the land use designation to `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy 7' in the King Street East Secondary Plan and the zoning to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone' (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 780R and Holding Provision 94H' in Zoning By-law 85-1, to allow for a FSR of 7.2; reduce the required parking; and regulate rear yard building setbacks. A Holding Provision is also proposed to be added to the property to prevent the development of the site with sensitive uses, including residential uses, until the site contamination has been remediated and a revised noise study is completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Planning Analysis: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25. Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; g) The minimization of waste; h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; p) The appropriate location of growth and development; q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it directs how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable, healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus, rapid transit, and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced Page 233 of 350 and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed multiple dwelling development represents an attainable form of market-based housing. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a mixed-use multiple dwelling development that is compatible with the surrounding community, helps manage growth, is transit supportive and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. The subject lands are in close proximity to transit and parks. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area, and within an Urban Corridor in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. Urban Corridors are identified as a Primary Intensification Area in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan on Map -2. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, Page 234 of 350 roads, trails and transit. The proposed development is also proposing to include several unit types, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan. Figure 6 — Subject lands are located within an Urban Corridor in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan on Map -2 Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. The Region of Waterloo have indicated they have no objections to the proposed application (Appendix `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community. Page 235 of 350 The subject lands are designated `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1" (Map 10) in the King Street East Secondary Plan (1994 Official Plan). The Mixed Use Corridor land use designation provides residential redevelopment opportunities together with appropriate commercial and institutional uses that primarily serve adjacent residential neighbourhoods. Over time it is intended that the Mixed Use Corridors shall intensify and provide a balanced distribution of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses. The policies of Special Policy Area 1 were deleted through OPA 111. The applicant is proposing to add Special Policy Area 7 to the King Street East Secondary Plan to allow a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.2 whereas the current Official Plan policies allow for a maximum FSR of 4.0 with an additional 1.0 FSR permitted if a 1000 square metre or larger food store is located within the mixed-use development. The proposed increase to the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is also required to support the proposed built form, which includes above grade structured parking internal to the building. Due to the significant grade change on site, underground site contamination and a high water table only one level of below -grade parking structure is feasible. As such, 3 levels of above grade parking internal to the building with one level of above grade deck parking are proposed. The parking structure is proposed to be wrapped with dwelling units along King Street East and Weber Street East and therefore screened from view although still contributing to FSR. The parking structure by itself represents an FSR of about 1.6. The amount of floor space occupied by the multiple dwelling units and commercial space represents an FSR of about 5.6, which is only slightly above the allowable FSR. City policies support the construction of structured parking in order to maximize intensification opportunities and minimize surface parking. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed increase to the FSR is appropriate. Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area in key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Major Transit Station Areas, Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within an `Urban Corridor' in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. Urban Corridors are identified as a Primary Intensification Area in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan on Map -2. Urban Corridors are generally linear in form and are located along existing or planned transit corridors. They are intended to have strong pedestrian linkages and be integrated with neighbouring residential and employment uses. The subject lands have direct access to two regional transit corridors which have multiple bus routes, access to Highway 8 and Highway 7. According policy 3.C.2.38 of the Official Plan, the planned function of Urban Corridors is to provide for a range of retail and commercial uses and intensification opportunities that should be transit - supportive. Urban Corridors function as the spine of a community as well as a destination for surrounding neighbourhoods. Strengthening linkages and establishing compatible interfaces between the Urban Corridors and surrounding Community Areas and Industrial Employment areas are priorities for development in these areas. The proposed development is planned for mixed-use which provides 184.4 square metres of retail/commercial along the King Street East frontage and provides for 616 purpose-built rental units. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities. Page 236 of 350 Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that not only complies with the City's policies for an Urban Corridor but also contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally -friendly city. Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) 1668 King Street East is within the King East Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) area. A statutory public meeting was held on December 9, 2019 regarding draft amendments to the King Street Secondary plan. The proposed Official Plan designation for the site is `Mixed Use' and the proposed zoning is `Medium to High Rise Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3)'. The NPR project is under review and updated draft land use designations and zoning will be considered in 2023. Urban Design The City's urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. In the opinion of staff, the proposed development meets the intent of these policies, specifically: Streetscape; Safety; Universal Design; Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and Scale Design. To address these policies, an Urban Design Brief and Design Report was submitted and has been reviewed by City staff. The Urban Design Brief outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed zoning by-law regulations. Streetscape — The King Street East frontage is activated by at -grade commercial units, with 184.4 square metres of commercial space proposed along the King Street East frontage. Furthermore, both buildings' principal entrances and lobbies are located at grade with direct access to public sidewalks. Both towers include podiums that have defined bases which will enhance the streetscape. Safety — As part of the site plan approval process, staff will ensure Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site meets the Ontario Building Code and the City's Emergency Services Policy. Universal Design —The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code. Skyline — The proposed buildings will provide a new feature on the City's skyline. The proposed buildings will create visual interest from several different vantage points. Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale — The subject site is designed to have a development that will be developed at a scale that is compatible with the existing and planned built form for the surrounding neighbourhood. The two towers have well defined podiums and building step backs which helps enhance the public realm. Massing is broken up at the 8th and 12th storeys on both towers which mitigate overlook issues and shadow impacts. Tower Design The proposed building tower A (building located along King Street East) is classified as a "Compact Slab" as the proposed tower floor plate is less than 850 square metres in area. The tower placement has been oriented towards King Street with an 8 storey podium and building step backs at the 12th floor. The tower massing is broken up vertically by variation and the articulation of building materials. Furthermore, balconies for the residential units are included on the street -facing elevations. The proposed building tower B (building located along Weber Street East) is classified as a "Compact Point'. Building B has well defined 8 stower podium along Weber Street which increases to 12 floors and then 23 floors. Like building A, the massing of building B is broken up vertically by variation and Page 237 of 350 the articulation of building materials. Furthermore, balconies for the residential units are included on the street -facing elevations. Shadow Impact Study The owner has completed a Shadow Impact Study in addition to the Urban Design Report. Staff have reviewed the study and are satisfied the shadow study meets the City's requirements, with respect to shadow impacts, as noted in the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Wind Study A wind study was prepared for the consideration of this development proposal and reviewed by staff. The wind conditions surrounding the proposed development are generally suitable. The submitted Preliminary Wind Study indicates less than ideal wind conditions for the on-site amenity area. Wind control features will be required through the site plan application staff as will a full Wind Assessment be required and reviewed at the site plan application stage. Tall Building Guidelines The proposed development has also been reviewed for compliance with the City's Design for Tall Buildings Guidelines. The objective of this document is to: • achieve a positive relationship between high-rise buildings and their existing and planned context; • create a built environment that respects and enhances the city's open space system, pedestrian and cyclist amenities and streetscapes; • create human -scaled pedestrian -friendly streets, and attractive public spaces that contribute to livable, safe and healthy communities; • promote tall buildings that contribute to the view of the skyline and enhance orientation, wayfinding and the image of the city; • promote development that responds to the physical environment, microclimate and the natural environment including four season design and sustainability; and, • promote tall building design excellence to help create visually and functionally pleasing buildings of architectural significance. The proposed development concept has been reviewed with these objectives in mind. City staff has confirmed that the proposed towers are generally consistent with and meet the overall intent of the City's Design for Tall Building Guidelines. More specifically, the proposed development meets the onsite and offsite separation distance requirements of the Design for Tall Building Guidelines. Transportation Policies: The Official Plan supports an integrated transportation system which incorporates active transportation, allows for the movement of people and goods and promotes a vibrant, healthy community using land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a wide range of transportation choices viable. The subject lands are located along King Street and Weber Street both which have multiple bus routes (GRT Routes 7 and 8) and stops located within walking distance. The building has excellent access to cycling networks, including existing on and off-street cycling facilities. The location of the subject lands, in the context of the City's integrated transportation system, supports the proposal for transit -oriented development on the subject lands. The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications will support a more intensive mixed-use residential development in a location that is supported by the transportation network. The location of the proposed buildings, secured through the proposed site- specific provisions, will result in a built form that fosters walkability within a pedestrian -friendly Page 238 of 350 environment that allows walking to be safe, comfortable, barrier -free and a convenient form of urban travel. At future site plan approval processes, the design of the buildings will have to feature a high-quality public realm to enhance the identity of the area and create gathering points for social interaction, community events and other activities. Additionally, secured and visitor bicycle parking will be required the Zoning By-law. Housing Policies: Section 4.1.1 of the City's Official Plan contains policies with the primary objective to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed development increases the amount of multiple dwelling units available in the city. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types including, one and two-bedroom units. Theses new units will meet and appeal to a variety of household needs. Sustainable Development Section 7.C.4.1 of the City's Official Plan ensures developments will increasingly be sustainable by encouraging, supporting and, where appropriate, requiring: a) compact development and efficient built form; b) environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and construction practices; c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; d) the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and, e) transit -supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active modes of transportation such as cycling and walking. Development applications are required to demonstrate that the proposal meets the sustainable development policies of the Plan and that sustainable development design standards are achieved. Sustainable development initiatives will be further implemented at the site planning stage through the detailed design of the buildings. Official Plan Conclusions The Official Plan Amendment application requests that the land use designation as shown on Map 10 — King Street East Secondary Plan be changed from `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1' to `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 7'. Based on the above -noted policies and planning analysis, staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents good planning and recommends that the proposed Official Plan Amendment be approved in the form shown in Appendix "A". Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are zoned `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' in Zoning By-law 85- 1. The existing zoning permits Multiple Dwellings and a wide range of Commercial and Institutional uses. The MU -3 zone currently allows for a maximum building Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 4.0 and there is no maximum building height. The existing zoning also requires 1.0 parking spaces for each dwelling unit over 51 square metres of floor area and 0.165 parking spaces for each dwelling unit having a floor area of 51.0 square metres or less (capped at 40% of the units). Page 239 of 350 The applicant has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law 85-1 to change the zoning from "High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Regulation Provision 780R and Holding Provision 94H" in Zoning By-law 85-1. Official Plan policies indicate that where special zoning regulations are requested for residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the site specific zoning regulations will consider compatibility with existing built form; appropriate massing and setbacks that support and maintain streetscape and community character; appropriate buffering to mitigate adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy; avoidance of unacceptable adverse impacts by providing appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area. The applicant is seeking to amend the Zoning By-law to add Special Regulation Provision 780R to Zoning By-law 85-1. The proposed Special Regulation Provision is to permit an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR), regulate the rear yard setback and reduce the required parking rate. Staff offer the following comments with respect to the proposed Special Regulation Provision 780R: a) That the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 7.2. The purpose of this regulation is to cap the Floor Space Ratio and ensure development does not exceed the density presented in the concept plans. b) That parking be provided at a rate of 0.64 parking spaces per dwelling unit. 7% of the required parking spaces shall be shared for visitor parking and non-residential uses. Bicycle and electric vehicle parking are to be provided in accordance with By-law 2019-051. The purpose of this regulation is to provide for a parking rate which is appropriate for the development as well as require adequate bicycle parking spaces and future electric vehicle charging parking spaces. The proposed ratio results in a parking rate of 0.64 parking spaces per dwelling unit (inclusive of visitor spaces). The subject lands will have adequate access to public transit and pedestrian/cycling networks and adequate bike storage will be provided within the development for residents. Planning and Transportation Services staff is of the opinion that the parking rate is appropriate for the subject lands. c) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 9.4 metres. The purpose of this regulation is to allow the building to be setback 9.4 metres to Weber Street East. The subject lands are a through lot and the building setback to Weber Street is regulated as a rear yard. Through lot rear yards function as front yards and the 9.4 metre rear yard setback to Weber Street allows for adequate site access off of Weber Steet into the subject lands. d) Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited. The Region of Waterloo has indicated Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited to mitigate the risks associated with contaminants that will remain beneath the site when the property is redeveloped. Staff offer the following comments with respect to Holding Provision 94H: Official Plan policies require that holding provisions will be applied in those situations where it is necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment Page 240 of 350 have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to facilitate the implementation of the `MU -3' zone and special regulation provision. The City will enact a by-law to remove the holding symbol when all the conditions set out in the holding provision have been satisfied, permitting development or redevelopment in accordance with the zoning category assigned. Holding Provision 94H Planning staff are recommending the following holding provision as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment: No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP). This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP) advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to their satisfaction. No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Road Traffic and Stationary Noise Study is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services, if necessary. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services advising that such noise study or studies has been approved and an agreement, if necessary, has been entered into with the City and/or Region, as necessary, providing for the implementation of any recommended noise mitigation measures There is an environmental threat located on and adjacent to the subject lands in accordance with the Region's Threats Inventory Database (TID) due to past and current land uses. A Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines. Until such time that the RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have been received by the Region, residential redevelopment of the site is not permitted. A noise study was prepared in support of the proposed Zoning By-law and reviewed by the Region of Waterloo. Additional building noise mitigation measures will be reviewed through the site plan design and approvals process and an addendum to the noise study will be required prior to removal of the Holding Provision. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to change the zoning of the subject lands to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' with Special Regulation Provision 78OR and Holding Provision 94H represents good planning as it will facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a mixed-use development that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, which will add visual interest at the street level and skyline, and will appropriately accommodate on-site parking needs. Staff are supportive of the proposed development and recommend that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Appendix "A". Department and Agency Comments: Circulation of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment was undertaken in September 2021 to all applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency and any necessary revisions and updates were made. Copies of the comments are found in Appendix "C" of this report. Page 241 of 350 The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by: MHBC Planning, July, 2021 • Planning Justification Report Addendum Prepared by: MHBC Planning, May, 2022 • Urban Design Brief Prepared by: MHBC Planning, May, 2022 • Shadow Study Prepared by: Cusimano Architects, May, 2022 • Transportation Impact Study and Parking Study Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions, July, 2021 • Transportation Impact Study and Parking Study Response Letter Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions, May, 2022 • Wind Study Prepared by: Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, May 2021 • Wind Study Response Prepared by: Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, May, 2022 • Water Flow Test Report Prepared by: FCFP, September 2020 • Site Servicing Feasibility Study Prepared by: SBM, May, 2021 • Hydrogeological Investigation and Dewatering Report Prepared by: MTE, September, 2021 • Geotechnical Report Prepared by: Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering LTD, December ,2020 • Sustainability Statement Prepared by: MHBC Planning, July, 2021 • Noise Feasbility Study Prepared by: HGC Engineering, July, 2021 Community Input & Staff Responses Staff received written responses from 18 residents with respect to the proposed development. These are included in Appendix `D'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on October 21, 2021. In addition, staff had follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public and held a small group site walk with residents. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. Page 242 of 350 What We Heard Staff Comment Concerns the proposed A Traffic Impact Study was submitted and reviewed by City development will create traffic that and Regional Transportation staff who did not identify any existing roads can not handle. major traffic concerns as a result of the proposed development. The existing zoning currently permits a floor space ratio of 4.0 and there is no maximum building height. The proposed amendments to allow for increase density allows Tall buildings should not be allowed. for two towers to be developed on site. The applicant has demonstrated that two towers can be accommodated in accordance with the City's design for tall building guidelines, which is the Council approved guiding document for tall building developments. Loss of day light for residents on A Shadow Study has been submitted. Staff have reviewed Floral Crescent and Jackson the study and are satisfied the shadow study meets the Avenue. Concerns Tall buildings will City's requirements, as related to shadow impacts and will block the sun on the Rockway have minimal impacts on residential properties and the Gardens. Rockway Gardens. The proposed development is located 80 metres to the nearest residential dwelling on Floral Crescent and is The building is too tall and residents separated by a 4 lane road (King Street East) with a have concerns with privacy into their landscaped median. A City -owned open space (Rockway yards. Gardens) with existing mature trees separates and screens King Street East to Floral Crescent. Furthermore, building stepbacks are proposed in the buildings at the 8th floor and 12th floors to further mitigate privacy concerns. The original development proposal included 371 parking spaces and 124 Class A bicycle parking spaces. The Too many units are being proposed revised development concept includes 403 parking and not enough on-site parking spaces, 307 Class A bicycle spaces, and 10 Class B visitor which will result in cars parking on bicycle spaces. In direct response to public and staff the street. comments additional parking was provided along with more bicycle parking for residents and visitors. A Parking Justification Study was submitted and reviewed by Transportation Services staff who support the proposed Not enough parking is being parking rate of 0.64 parking spaces per dwelling unit. provided. Unbundled parking is proposed as well as 0.5 Class A bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit are required as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measure. This development is not receiving affordable housing sponsorship. Rather the development proposes 616 Affordable Units should be provided. purpose-built rental units which is an alternative housing option for those who are not in a position to purchase a dwelling unit. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 1668 King Street East to be developed with a mixed-use Page 243 of 350 development. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. Planning staff are recommending that the applications be approved. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. A large notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in September of 2021. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and who attended the Neighbourhood Meetings. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on August 19, 2022 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix B). CONSULT—The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were circulated to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on September 21, 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 18 members of the public, which were summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails and held a small group site walk with residents. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Regional Official Plan • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 1994 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services APPENDIX& Appendix A— Proposed Official Plan Amendment Appendix B — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Appendix C — Newspaper Notice Appendix D — Department and Agency Comments Appendix E — Public Comments Page 244 of 350 of LLJO N a Z Of 0 Z W 0O d) Q � O z p w o LL] z N 0 0 w Q Jm� O N p Z p J U 0 W ZOo Z O LLIp p> Owz� w OZcn Q QIQ X p O Q° p N 0} � 0 N 17 X a� F- X p w Q J 00 p O� () oho H Z� W~ Z Z W LLIU Q Z Of U �0 Z 0�} X °N O Z W Z LLI W Q N O \ a LLJ — U) w o w NN O ((D Z Of LLI pz m x Q CD CO (7 > X Q O_ z U) °}° =w ww° Q °o z Q w�- z o o N o z Z LU 0 w F-OzzZOf� U Z w Q Q Q u� Q Z a LL Q W O -1 Q Q ~ x0Cx)0 (D W =O 2 z z z z w Z �LLI °ZXO O OJ 00 m Q La U LU LU 3 af La O O W 2 2 p 0 0 0 N W a J Z W N LL W j� a Z LU p�2032�0 �° (7 � = w w w� N�° 0 a-LuS S Z O aim Z<2E Of x Q U w w w Q N ww�x S Z m W w0lr2Ir=p J v Z c�z chz Of Of of J N ZxQU SSS w Z �� wY-000—z >Lof �OxOv u) (o �0 U OUCH SSS �Q U) QQLL0 03:< CO U-'2N'2N 0 00 U z 0 NUOY S S w d N Z 0 U W Z u' 1 W U �• C > 191 Ny dNnw W m S9!NIINnn Z J Q WW IL J ■� b w 0 U o OQ Z IL �o OLL N O N M= N m z N O Lo v w 1 a ui m w o Lo o � o W w o WU) O J w CD U o WIW ass as a ?aa39� N naa co v qd n co co 4` NOOQ 3 1 0 a 1 cZ a w z I o ,O�/ �/� i o O 4 LI. VJ CC 44 /y O N0 Y v 0 z a) co �o a� a�� egg s 1 04 �� o coo OQ-Q CV a , U co 04 0 � o � z z <71Z U C) a I J cl CL CL C7 J co Jo O0 LLo�c Q� a o 0 0 UaNO `o co co a I Iia<z co o N N o f LL LU 0Q Q O O U O co c co O 00 c U T'C T a m HW W a O o = `O= N c7 W�WfA O (n T O U) O Z z wW�O U o °� Q 0 woo U) 76- Z W L� co — E a� p D -p W a UDC9= d O Q co o Q.x n0 n YWYW ami -a .- c ca o `O 0 EU).xU p Z iW m x_ � a) � E U a� o Z W ~ LU O a 2 2 m U) H d (n 2 Q L"L Q Li a LU F- (' Q o U W °' zQ Y LU Z J .... WJP.61 J 0 m a } w m > Q O' w ILz W GVOO1NOW - - O ON o a Q w O� CN N 0 o Loj U) W w m C=) LU oo w �S w �O o � LU a8 NOOQ 2 I Z � W cA Q O _ -rJ LLQ 0� cn t �n U JU Q � Q Z OO z W Y co a� m U � m �Q o �O Y co c14 O � City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form Address: 1668 King St E Owner: 2806399 Ontario Inc Application M OPA 21/088/K/CD and ZBA 21/013/K/CD Comments Of: City of Kitchener— Urban Design- Planning Commenter's Name: Pegah Fahimian Email: Pegah.fahimian@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7342 Date of Comments: June 30 2022 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) %a`' "'�" 'a No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: ® New Cover Letter ® New Urban Design Brief- MHBC Planning • New Concept Site Plan - Cusimano Architects drawings Site -Specific Comments & issues: The application proposes two towers connect amenity space. While the concept of residenti previous staff comments have been incorpora be addressed in the Site Plan Stage to create "a appropriate for this site and neighbourhood: --- The tall building design guidelines.,are ari excel zoning permissions. The proposal meets the `te separation. shared parking facilities and outdoor common msification on this site is positive and many to the proposal, some design modifications must lopment proposal that is well designed and lentcompatibility test for proposals exceeding their II building guidelines, specifically with regards to The tower should step back>from its`base a minimum of 3m along any street -facing elevations. Provide floor plans for the location"of proposed retail and residential on the ground floor and above - grade parking,levels The building facades'fronting on King and Weber St should contain an appropriate amount of glazing and articulation, particularly along the lower 5m where the building addresses the sidewalk. This protect should play a significant role in reinforcing the character of King and Weber Street. There is a need for public art at the entrance, well integrated into the architecture of the building, and suggest the following as options. o Public Art (sculpture, mural, digital) o Living wall (interior or exterior, but visible/prominent) o ..,Enhanced architecture at the corner o Community -oriented space o Enhanced exterior lighting (colored, programmable, pattered, etc.) The city is supportive of the approach to use balconies to add a pattern to the tower, to articulate the facades and break down tower massing. Refining these balconies to create the best possible architectural expression for the tower will be critical. Podium levels along King and Weber Street would benefit from balconies for residential units, adding natural surveillance and a greater sense of street life. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 247 of 350 Page 1 of 4 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form ® The proposed towers should have unique top features that are architecturally excellent, highly visible and make a positive contribution to the image of Kitchener developing skyline. ® Confirmation to be provided that the proposal -maintained access to at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight to nearby residential, sidewalks and open spaces. ® All at -grade parking should be wrapped with active uses. ® Provide multiple above grade rooftops and podium amenities with a minimum of (2 sq.m X # units) + (2.5 sq.m x # bedrooms - # units) = outdoor amenity space. The amenity spaces ® Provide natural surveillance by employing high percentages of glazing, active uses at groyndl_evel /1s , and incorporate more units with windows and balconies on the main facade with views onto the street ® Provide materiality and texture shifts at the podium and across the towers and in`corpgrate' variations in tower setbacks from the base to distinguish the tower form from the�podiu"m. 3. Comments on Submitted Documents New Urban Design Brief, MHBC Planning ® Floor plan including the parking layouts, retail spaces and'untt layouts to be provided ® Residential and commercial entrances should be clearly identified and offer access from both the public realm and the private parking side`ofthe building -;The use of natural or built canopies /cantilevers to enhance pedestrian refuge anal define the public realm is encouraged ® 3 -bed units are desirable as they provide more.living space for families. A higher percentage of these units might help with community engagement' ® Please outline the sustainability features.ofahis project. a Additional details to be provided fo the pedestrian entrance, architectural style, elements, detailing and material selectio0. and articulation. Details of the streetscape are to be provided. Any streetscape elements proposed are to be reviewed and approved. Balconies may be staggered in a creative pattern to lighten the structure and provide private outdoor space for the units. A City for Everyone Page 248 of 350 Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Pate 2 of 4 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form ® The proposed tower may be expressed with alternating solid cladding around balconies and glass curtain walls around living areas. ® Wind assessment and Noise feasibility study required for the outdoor amenity and the pedestrian realm. ® The underground parking structure should have sufficient setback from the property lines to accommodate the necessary soil volume to support required large-statured, high canopy trees. Perimeter trees should not be located on the garage slab roof. Within the site, required tree plantings can be accommodated on the garage slab but will still require standard m�mum soil volumes. , /7/ ® The area between the building's face and the property line should be well inte`gcated.:wit`h the street and public realm to deliver high quality and seamless private, semi -pr nate toangpublic , ,,/ spaces. 't V, " %'% ® All at -grade parking should be wrapped with active uses. ® The proposed towers should be designed and clad with differentnateria;lsand colors so that they read as distinct from one another. ® Towers should have Heights that are visibly distinct whenuew'ed from/ round level. General) a tower should be shorter than an adjacent tower if its?ste/spare%fat ansition to low or y, mid -rise surrounding neighborhoods, and a tower sFrould`b.e tal'fer than an adjacent tower if its site is closer to higher order transit stops�or sigificantlanclmark destinations. ® High quality building design is expected. Thebuilding design should be revised to incorporate appropriate setbacks, stepbacks and well-artcfalatednassin with a well-defined base/podium g and a ground floor integrated into the public real`i'� i ,. %% ,pn ///'�!/, Analysis of Microclimate Impacts; Confirmation has to be pr #R that the proposal maintains daily access to 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight to nearbysidewalks and°open spaces under equinox conditions, beginning with sidewalk , located on the opposite side of adjacent ROWS. Wind Stu V,% Pedestrian Level Wind — Preliminary Impact Assessment. Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory =;Upda"te�Memo A furtlie'r,',quantitative wind study coupled with a detailed wind tunnel analysis will be required as part of the full site -plan application package. A revised design proposal should be developed that addresses the wind impacts outlined in the submitted wind study. According to the submitted wind study, the proposed amenity area located between the two towers is expected to be uncomfortable for typical activities in both summer and winter time. This can be especially problematic at entrance to the amenity area. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 3aP% 249 of 350 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form The submitted preliminary/ desktop Wind Study indicates that *Ibuilding corners can expect to experience increased winds and there will bepotential wind impacts from the proposed buildings particularly along the King StEfrontage. A City for Everyone WorkngTogether —GrowMRTouahQlyl—BGBmgCommunity . PNlg%4W 4)f 350 % y z& %0, zR � , % % ' It" 'yy » ® « b , § 9 « ! � & / y y 7�y± < a g &V& g�� a;, a « + ' y � . ; e � � /i,j �: i Z � , \ o , ; , + A City for Everyone WorkngTogether —GrowMRTouahQlyl—BGBmgCommunity . PNlg%4W 4)f 350 Dumart From: Victoria Grohn Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:30 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1668 King Street East) Hi Craig, No heritage planning concerns. Victoria Victoria Grohn (she/her) Heritage Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 70411 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 victoria.grohnngeitchener ca From: Christine Kompter <Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 20211:38 PM To: 'Hodgins, Allan (MTO)' <AIIan.Hodgins@ontario.ca>; _DL # DSD Planning <DSD -Planning Division@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly <cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson @kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchen er.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelop ment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert. Morgan @kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; UW - SA <Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns @wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1668 King Street East) Please see attached - additional documentation available in ShareFile. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street, West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca T_ 1s £ t•�t4 TN' Page 251 of 350 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 1668 King Street East Application Type: Official Plan Amendment OPA21/008/K/CD Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/21/013/K/CD Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) —City of Kitchener Commenter's name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7068 Written Comments Due: October 15, 2021 Date of comments: October 8, 2021 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application: • Sustainability Statement, 1668 King Street East. July 19, 2021. MHBC Planning. 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of a 23 -storey multiple residential buildings (616 units) connected by a shared parking structure and with commercial space along King St E and provided the following: ® It is very encouraging to know that this development will be constructed to support a more sustainable form of living, building orientation considering passive heating and lighting' building design to achieve an Energy Start 17.0 and building construction to support future PV installation. Based on my review the Sustainability Statement provided in support of the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment is acceptable. 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. a 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. 1IPage Page 252 of 350 • 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 ENERGY STAR® Multifamily High -Rise Pilot Program for new construction is a new five-year certification program in Ontario that recognizes buildings that are at least 15% more energy- efficient than those built to the provincial energy code and meet other program requirements. More information can be found online at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy- efficiency/buildings/new-buildings/enemy-Starr-multifamily high rise pilot program/21966 ➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under 'Planning Resources' at ... a. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_Sustainability_ Statement—Standard—Terms—of Reference.pdf Wage §83 of 350 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 1668 King St E Owner: 2806399 Ontario Inc Application: OPA 21/088/K/CD and ZBA 21/013/K/CD Comments Of: Parks & Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore.ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: October 07 2021 � °o ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion);%�! ❑ No meeting to be held i 0 I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) I. Documents Reviewed: 021-06-28 ent. Boundary Layer Wind OPA / ZBA to allow a mixed 31 units, 204 square metres ian 4.0, reduced rear yard king to permit parking at a gare metres in size, rather in -lieu of land at the future i Dedication Policy current rkland Dedication Policy is e plan, a revised parkland 000.00 per hectare as per id valuation of $1,110,000 11-0 vviu1 a Ndirudiiu ueuicavon rate of 2% of the total net new commercial floor area are the current Parkland Dedication rates. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 254 of 350 Page 1 of 3 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form 3. Comments on Submitted Documents Concept Plans - Cusimano Architects drawings SK -00 to SK -17 dated 2021-06-28 Much of the active parkland in the Eastwood neighbourhood Planning Community is located north of Weber St E and the design of the Weber St E frontage should be reconsidered to accommodate pedestrian movement and provide a landscaped streetscape. Accommodating through lot access for residents from both buildings and from bicycle/torage ,f cilities would improve use of and access to existing and planned neighbourhood multi-usepatf}ways°;and trails. A roof on the second floor parking deck should be provided to accommodate additions on-site amenity space.OV ., Wind Study - Pedestrian Level Wind — Preliminary Impact Assessment. `Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory report dated May 112021 The submitted preliminary / desktop Wind Study m' icates that there will be potential wind -related impacts from the proposed buildings particularly along the'KngtSt E frontage. There are pedestrian and transit facilities located along both Weber St E and`Ki;ng St E; within the right of way and also the City - owned Rockway Gardens immediately across Kfg St E'fr"om the development site. A full wind Study utilizing the detailed building design should be'°completed and used to inform design adjustments that will reduce the anticipated off-site wind impactsto pre=development levels. Sensors/evaluation points should be included at the four points noted in fushia on the attached sketch. Parks & Cemeteries will require a'copy of the full Wind Assessment for review and approval at the site plan application stage and expect``that site and building design adjustments will be made to ensure no impacts to the public realm or -;property. A City for Everyone Page 255 of 350 Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 2 of 3 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: ® KitchenerOmcQ|@an - OR of Kitchener Parkland Dedication Policy - O2 of Kitchener Development Manu/ ® Cycling and Trails Master Plan 90 % ® Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Mastem%n - Urban Design Manu/ %5 Anticipated Fees: ® Parkland De$2fo�npaid as cash h[e�uo land due prior to Final Site Plana app 6v111>,., «j � y : � � 3 « + « , � ƒ ƒ a y J , % 3 . � % � s \ - Q 3 «/ ± v d yy yUS, �. ©y y a % s �y ƒ�� ; , , y Amay ^�> A Ci! rEveryone Page 256 O 350 Working Together— GrowingTouh#«/—B98h3Community City of Kitchener Application Type: Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment Application #: ZBA21/013/K/CD and OPA21/008/K/CD Project Address: 1668 King Street East Comments of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 Date of Comments: October 13, 2021 After reviewing the Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study and Site Circulation Review (July 2021) submitted by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd., Transportation Services offer the following comments. Transportation Services review focused on the Parking Study and Site Circulation Review. A thorough, in depth review of the Transportation Impact Study was not completed for the Weber Street East or King Street East access points, as each of the roadways are under the jurisdiction of the Region of Waterloo. A review of the site access points for the Five and Ten Year Total Traffic Operations scenarios concluded, that the site access at King Street East in the AM and PM peak hours is operating with acceptable Level of Service (LOS) and acceptable volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. The site access at Weber Street East in the AM peak hour has an acceptable LOS and v/c ratios. The PM peak hour noted a LOS E for vehicles turning left onto Weber Street East, however, there is vehicle capacity available for the site access. The development is proposing 616 dwelling units, plus 204 square metres of retail space. The current zoning by-law parking requirement for this development is 513 spaces, where 371 parking spaces are being proposed. The equates to a parking shortfall of 142 spaces. Of the 616 dwelling units, 132 of the units are proposed to be less than 51 square metres, which permit a lower vehicle parking rate, which is being satisfied. Also, the retail vehicle parking rate is being satisfied. However, the vehicle parking for the remaining 484 dwelling units will be discussed further. As part of the Parking Justification in Section 6 of the report, the analysis compared several different vehicle parking rates to the proposed parking rate and vehicle parking supply for this development. Also, the incorporation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures into the site. The parking rate analysis of five proxy sites that are located within the City of Kitchener concluded an average peak parking demand of 0.66 parking spaces per unit, where this development is proposing 0.70 spaces per unit. The ITE Parking Generation Manual for this type of development and location estimates, 345 parking spaces, where 371 parking spaces are being proposed. Area Specific A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 257 of 350 Vehicle Ownership from the 2016 Transportation Tomorrow Survey suggests that vehicle ownership among apartment dwellers is 0.98 vehicles per household. It should be noted that vehicle ownership could not be consider for the ION rail service that opened in September 2019. Also, the household data reflects older developments, where vehicle parking was typically over supplied and didn't have comprehensive TDM plans associated with the developments. The TDM measures noted within the report spoke to, existing Grand River Transit routes along King/Weber streets and pedestrian walkability along existing municipal sidewalks at King/Weber streets. The report also noted that the site is committed to unbundling the cost of parking from the units, providing 124 indoor secure Class A bicycle parking spaces, provision of car share parking and TDM educational information packages for tenants. It should be noted that the proposed visitor parking rate of 10% would meet the intent of the future zoning by-law and all parking to be located on-site. Therefore, Transportation Services can support the proposed vehicle parking rate of 0.70 spaces per unit for units greater than 51 square metres, provided that the above noted committed TDM measures are provided on-site for this development. b. The truck movement plan on Figure 7.1 AutoTURN Site Circulation TAC HSU, is acceptable. Transportation Services supports the recommendation in the report to have the circular center island at the Weber Street East access point be a constructed as a mountable island, to enable trucks to exit the site in a forward motion onto Weber Street East. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 258 of 350 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Fora, Address: 1668 King St E Owner: 2806399 Ontario Inc Application #: OPA 21/088/K/CD and ZBA 21/013/K/CD Comments Of: City of Kitchener— Urban Design- Planning Commenter's Name: Pegah Fahimian Email: Pegah.fahimian@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7342 Date of Comments: October 15, 2021 ❑ g (questions/concerns/comments I plan to attend the meetin for discussion) , � No meeting to be held %.,,11/1000 ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. • O • • 2. Documents Reviewed: rn%ior I o+tor 'y Layer Wind Tunnel to allow a mixed-use 04 square meters of !te parking to permit 1.0 square meters in meet design criteria sed design proposal J in the City's Urban i identified below: ated with the street ublic spaces. ign Manual • The tower should step back from its base a minimum of 3m along any street -facing elevations. • The underground parking structure should have sufficient setback from the property lines to accommodate the necessary soil volume to support required large -statured, high canopied trees. Perimeter trees should not be located on the garage slab roof. Within the site, required tree plantings can be accomodated on the garage slab but will still required standard minimum soil volumes. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 259 of 350 Page 1 of 3 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form 3. Comments on Submitted Documents Concept Plans - Cusimano Architects drawings SK -00 to SK -17 dated 2021-06-28 ® Towers are highly visible elements of the urban environment and must meet Kitchener's highest standards for design excellence. The building should be designed and clad with different"aterials and colors so that they read as distinct from one another.f/% / • The proposed towers should have unique top features that is architecturally exe lleSPUR,k.. highl.� visible and makes a positive contribution to the image of Kitchener developing skyjne �'"%,,. ® Provide natural surveillance by employing high percentages of glazinga"` esround level and incorporate more units with windows and balconies on the maih'faca,de"''with views onto the street g i; u; �%ir„ ® Towers should have Heights that are visibly distinct when vr'ewedfrom ground level. Generally, a tower should be shorter than an adjacent tower if its�,,At'eis�part of"a transition to low or mid -rise surrounding neighborhoods, and a to r shou(:d be taller than an adjacent tower if its site is closer to higher order transit stops or significant°-1'arr ark destinations. ® Provide materiality and texture shifts at the odium"and across the towers and incorporate p variations in tower setbacks from the bAse'distinguish the tower form from the podium. • High quality building design is expectetl The buildli design should be revised to incorporate appropriate setbacks, stepbacks-and wellarticulated massing with a well-defined base/podium and a ground floor integrated into°the pu:b;lic realm. ® Residential entrances--"shoufd:be'elearly identified and offer access from both the public realm and the private./p'6f;thAuilding. All utilitiessh'buld':be coordinated with the landscape design and with building elevations to provide a high qua ity�pedest"rain experience with the site and from the public realm. Infrastructure should moi.. h1 g mechanical/ electrical vvithir the building m mechanical electrical rooms and exterior connections located discretely and incorporate physical screens or landscape plating as required. Surface transformers or servLce connections visible from the public realm are not supported. Wind Study - Pedestrian Level Wind — Preliminary Impact Assessment. Boundary Layer Wind runnel Laboratory report dated May 11, 2021 The submitted preliminary / desktop Wind Study indicates that all building corners can be expected to experience increased winds and there will be potential wind impacts from the proposed buildings A City for Everyone Page 260 of 350 Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community D,R� a �, City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form particularly along the King k Efrontage. The amenit space B located between two bm8ln s. This area has been identified as requiring mitigation t mak it functional for typical amenity maps. Afull Wind Assessment should beprovided for review at the site plan ap/|q£o,nstage. Arevised design proposal should be developed that addresses the wind impacts outlined in the submitted wind stuyy. A City for Everone Wo¥hgT Amer— GmwngT Thoughtfully —B%B!n Community Page 281 O SSO a e 3 of 3 / 'A ƒ%% � \ � � a Z%y 4 y% z r�% i« / y a a ; ƒ � 3 \ %± y � � � 6 y�;yy�o Y y , � > «� � m , V", ; y >� y . . � A City for Everone Wo¥hgT Amer— GmwngT Thoughtfully —B%B!n Community Page 281 O SSO a e 3 of 3 Craig Dumart From: Katie Wood Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 8:47 AM To: 'Kate Wills'; Craig Dumart Cc: 'Stephen Litt'; Mark Hoculik, Pierre Chauvin Subject: RE: 1668 king st street - opajzba resubmission This is acceptable to Engineering. Thank you. Engineering and KU have no concerns regarding the flows at this time. Sincerely, 7COH9 WOOd, C.E.T. Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 TTY 1-866-969-9994 katie.wood Cab kitchen er ca From: Kate Wills <kwills@mhbcplan.com> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 5:12 PM To: Craig Dumart < Craig. Duma rt@kitchener.ca>; Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Cc: 'Stephen Litt' <sI@vivedevelopment.ca>; Mark Hoculik <mh@vivedevelopment.ca>; Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcplan.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: 1668 king st street - opa/zba resubmission Hi Craig and Katie. Please see the email below from Justin Erb at SBM confirming that the population on site has decreased. The domestic water demand will be less and sanitary flows will be less, therefore the flows from the original SFS are still met. We trust the email below and attachments are satisfactory. Katie — can you please confirm you are satisfied with the email below? Craig- can you please confirm that there are no outstanding items for 1668 King to finalize the recirculation/comments? Thank you. Kate KATE WILLS BES MCIP PPP I Associate �`-AIBC Planning, Urban Design& Landscape Architecture 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 1 Kitchener I ON I N213 3X9 I T 519 576 3650 1 C 519 635 9999 1 F 519 576 0121 1lvvills(c�rnhbcolan com Folio -vii us: U1lebcaga I Lin,<edin I Facebool< I Twitter I Vimeo Page 262 of 350 This communication is intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, protected or otherwise exempt from disclosure. No waiver of confidence, privilege, protection or otherwise is made. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please advise us immediately and delete this email without reading, copying or forwarding it to anyone. From: Justin Erb <jerb sbmltd.ca> Sent: June 16, 2022 4:00 PM To: Mark Hoculik <mh@vivedevelopment ca>; Kate Wills <kwills@mhbcplan.com> Cc: Stephen Litt <sl@vivedevelopment.ca>; Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcplan com>; 'Daniel Cusimano' <dca@studio185.ca>; Mick Kerr <mkerr@studio185.ca> Subject: RE: 1668 king st street - opa/zba resubmission Hi Mark and Kate, Our original Servicing Feasibility Study (SFS) dated May 31, 2021, (attached for reference) used a total unit count of 616 units containing 852 bedrooms for a total population of 1,704 people. The revised architectural plans (attached) dated May 13, and May 31, 2022, along with the email from Mick providing the bedroom count show a total unit of 616 units containing 795 bedrooms for a total population of 1,590 people. As the total population has decreased, the domestic water demand will be less and the sanitary flows will also be less; therefore, the flows from the original SFS are still met. Please, let me know if you require any additional information. Have a great day, Justin Erb, C.E.T. Associate I, Project Lead P: 519-471-6667 x117 S T.R I K 'BALD F .......... From: Mark Hoculik <mh@vivedevelopment ca> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 2:31 PM To: Kate Wills <kwills@mhbcolan.com>; Justin Erb <jerb@sbmltd.ca> Cc: Stephen Litt <sl@vivedevelopment.ca>; Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcplan.com> Subject: RE: 1668 king st street - opa/zba resubmission @Justin Erb — Please provide email confirmation for Katie's email below as instructed. Your comment was as follows (in tracker): Page 263 of 350 Justin - no servicing concern that would hold back sign off on re -zoning. Changes on detailed design (Confirm Storm Sewer Restriction) E:r MARK HOCULIK I Project Manager, Design & Planning Vive Development I vivedevelopment.com 519.574.4338 1 mh@vivedevelopment.ca From: Kate Wills <kwills@mhbcplan.com> Sent: June 7, 2022 2:24 PM To: Mark Hoculik <_mh@vivedevelopment.ca> Cc: Stephen Litt <sl@vivedevelo ment.ca>; Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcplan.com> Subject: FW: 1668 king st street - opa/zba resubmission Mark. Please see the email thread and below from the City of Kitchener regarding the Functional Servicing Brief for 1668 King St. We did not resubmit an updated study as part of this submission. Can you please touch base with SBM and see how they can address the City concerns? Thanks Kate KATE WILLS EES IVICIP RPP I Associate MHBCPlanning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 1 Kitchener I ON I N213 3X9 T 519 576 3650 1 C 519 635 9999 1 F 519 576 0121 1 kwillsQmhbeolan.corn Follow us: Weboacle I Linkedin I Facebook I Twitter I Vimeo This communication is intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, protected or ol, eryiise exempt from disclosure. No waiver of confidence, privilege, protection or othenvise is made. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please advise us immediately and delete this email v/ithout reading, copying or fonvarding it to anyone, From: Craig Dumart <Crai,-.Duman@kitchener.ca> Sent: June 7, 2022 2:14 PM To: Kate Wills <kvvills@mhbcalan.com> Subject: FW: 1668 king st street - opa/zba resubmission See Engineering's response below. Page 264 of 350 Craig From: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener ca> Sent: Tuesday, lune 7, 2022 2:13 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener ca> Subject: RE: 1668 king st street - opa/zba resubmission Hello, I've looked this over and it doesn't appear that they updated the functional servicing report or water distribution report. Those are standard Engineering requirements for a ZBA. If the flows from the original 2021 application are still met then I'd just need that confirmation in an email from the consultant. Sincerely, Xdie ®®d"'c.E.T. Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood kitchener. ca From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart kitchener ca> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 2:32 PM To: Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; Pegah Fahimian <Pegah.Fahimian@kitchener ca>; MMohr <MMohr regionofwaterloo.ca>; Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener ca> Subject: FW: 1668 king st street - opa/zba resubmission Good afternoon everyone, The applicant has revised their OPA/ZBA application in response to staffs comments on their initial submission. Please see the share file link below with the resubmission subfolder with all of the updated documents. Please review and provide updated formal comments by JUNE 30, 2022. Craig Dumart, BES, IVICIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7073 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 craig.dumart_@kitchener ca a VE From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Komoter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 2:27 PM Page 265 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Dave Seller Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 11:01 AM To: Craig Dumart Subject: RE: 1668 King Street East - Visitor Parking Requirement The below parking breakdown is acceptable. From: Kate Wills <kwills@mhbcplan.com> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:43 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca> Cc: 'Stephen Litt' <sl@vivedevelopment.ca>; Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcplan.com>; Mark Hoculik <mh@vivedevelopment.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 1668 King Street East - Visitor Parking Requirement Hi Craig and Dave. As per your request, below is a table showing the breakdown of parking for 1668 King Street East. If you require and additional information, please let me know. Thanks Kate KATE WILLS BES MCIP RPP I Associate HBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 1 Kitchener I ON I N26 3X9 I T 519 576 3650 1 C 519 635 9999 1 F 519 576 0121 1 kwillsC@mhbcnian.com Follolav us: Webpage I Linkedin I Facebook I Twitter I Vimeo This cora Unlc@`I0;1 is in°8!10ed s0lelf i0r ti18llamsd add-Qe,2(s) 2, d i n -Y cuii'.aiilal Is pitnllegeC;, C� i l: ilt �, ,0 v_z_i G 0: 0`_'1 ;, S -, 0? iiGm d'scl0siffe 11\101P1ai e:Oi C01tC]e�lc2, Or iilcr8, pro.sc'Ubn Or O:Lhan4 se is Fc d 11" y0!! alo COi 71„ i.lt3gd8d recd err' Oi t';.- cC.?ii!'!^a� on, ,ulE�%,_a .arse tis I M f'-z;i1a�eIy 8i'lri d s 3 8,Tk'i IN', i0Li ie2:Il' c0?yl"G,- Cr'Jl„, ddi, i l tv .. JOr;a. 1 Page 266 of 350 From: Craig Dumart <Cralg.DUmart kitchener ca> Sent: June 16, 2022 11:08 AM To: Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcolan com>; Kate Wills <kwills@mhbcolan com> Cc: 'Stephen Litt' <sl @vivedevelopment ca> Subject: FW: 1668 King Street East - Visitor Parking Requirement See daves request below. Cra ig From: Dave Seller <Dave.SeHerkitchener ca> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 10:49 AM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart kitchener ca> Subject: RE: 1668 King Street East - Visitor Parking Requirement Hi Craig, Can you have the applicant provide a summary of the parking provided. Retail Visitor Residential Total Thanks. 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.sellerCa kitchener ca ��'�� '•,� Irk �� '� � i 1 �� From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Durnart@kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:20 PM To: Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener ca> Subject: FW: 1668 King Street East - Visitor Parking Requirement See response below regarding visitor parking rate for 1668 king st e From: Kate Wills <kwills@mhbcplan.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 2:33 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener ca> Cc: Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcnlan.com>; Stephen Litt <sl@vivedevelopment ca>; Mark Hoculik <mh a vivedevelopment.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 King Street East - Visitor Parking Requirement Hi Craig. Page 267 of 350 We have had some discussions with our project team and would like to add back in the original request for a reduction in visitor parking for 1668 King Street to 7% of the total parking requirement. Please use this email as our formal request for permission to amend Section 6.1.2 b) vi) C to permit rate of 7% of required parking. ) p t Visitor Parking at a If you have any questions please let me know. The justification for the reduction of the visitor parking rate remains the same as our original submission. Thank you. Kate KATE WILLS BES MCIP RPP I Associate Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 1 Kitchener I ON I N2B 3X9 I T 519 5763650 9999 F 519 576 0121 kwills(a�mhbc�lan com C 519 635 Follow us: Web ale I Lines I Face � Tv✓fitter � Vimeo suieiy Tor ine named addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, protected or otherwise exempt from disclosure. No waiver of confidence, privilege, protection or otherwise is made. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please advise us immediately and delete this email without reading, copying or forwarding it to anyone. Page 268 of 350 Region of Waterloo Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Dumart, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 226-752-8622 File: D17/2/21008 C14/2/21013 August 10, 2022 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/08 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/013 — 2nd submission 1668 Fling Street East MHBC Planning Ltd. (C/O Pierre Chauvin) on behalf of 2806399 Ontario Inc. (C/O Stephen Litt) CITY OF KITCHENER MHBC Planning Ltd. on behalf of 2806399 Ontario Inc. has resubmitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 1668 King Street East in the City of Kitchener. Original Application and Proposal: The original proposal was to permit a mixed-use development for two, 23 storey buildings consisting of 616 residential units and 204 square metres of commercial space. The applicant required an Official Plan Amendment to permit an increased in the floor space ratio of 7.2 whereas a maximum of 4.0 is permitted. In addition, a Zoning By-law Amendment was required in order to permit the increased floor space ratio of 7.2, and a rear yard setback of 12 metres, whereas 14 metres is required and a parking rate of 0.7 spaces per unit for a multiple dwelling unit greater than 51 square metres in size, rather than the required 1 space per unit. Current Application and Proposal: The applicant has continued to proposed a mixed-use development for two towers; One tower is proposed as a multi-storey tower containing an 8 -storey podium connected to a 12 and 23 storey residential tower containing 313 residential units. The ground floor contains approximately 184.4 sq.mt of commercial/retail space. The second tower Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866V.1 Page 1 of 11 Page 269 of 350 contains an 8 -storey podium connected to a 12 and 22 storey residential tower containing 303 residential units. There is a shared outdoor amenity area located on the third storey above the parking structure. Four hundred and three (403) parking spaces are located in a below grade parking structure and within the first two storeys of the 3 - storey parking deck which is to be shared by both buildings. An Official Plan Amendment is required to permit the redesignation of the lands from Mixed -Use with Special Policy Area 1 to Mixed -Use with a Special Policy Area to permit an increased FSR of 7.2 (whereas a maximum of 4.0 is permitted). The Zoning By-law Amendment is required to rezone the whole of the lands to MIX -2 and to modify site- specific provisions to allow an FSR of 7.2 (whereas a max. of 4 FSR is permitted); permit a rear yard.setback from the Weber Street frontage of 9.4 m (whereas 14 m is required); permit a dwelling unit at grade (along the King Street frontage) in a mixed-use building; permit a parking rate of 0.64/unit for all multiple dwelling units. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following: Regional Cornrnents 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 designated Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1 in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Furthermore, the subject lands are zoned High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -3) Zone. The Urban Area designation of the ROP has the physical infrastructure and communit infrastructure to support major growth and social and public health services (ROP y 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 Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA's). Mostly all of the Region's future growth will occur within the Urban Area, 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.B). Regional staff understand that the development is located in an Urban Corridor of the City of Kitchener and is situated on two Regional Roads with bus routes that connect to a rapid transit stop; therefore, Regional staff have no objection to the additional density proposed through this application. In addition to the above, the Region wishes to advise the applicant of the following technical comments related to the proposal: Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866 V.1 Page 2 of 11 Page 270 of 350 Record of Site Condition As indicated through the record of pre -submission, there are medium and high environmental threats located on and adjacent to the subject lands due to past land uses in accordance with the Region's Treats Inventory Database (TID); therefore, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines. The Region shall require a holding provision on the subject lands (excluding the lands subject to the road dedication) to require the submission of a RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Corridor Planning Official Plan and Zonin B -law Amendment Sta e. Transportation (Road) Noise: Region of Waterloo staff have reviewed the "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Mixed - Use Development, 1668 King Street East, Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario" dated July 8, 2021, prepared by HGC Engineering and Regional transportation comments are as follows: The environmental noise study notes that the proposed development will be impacted by both transportation noise and stationary noise sources. The transportation noise aspects of the report determined that the noise levels at various locations exceed the Region of Waterloo and Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) noise limits. Noise mitigation measures (e.g. installation of air-conditioning special building components (e.g. walls, windows, doors etc.) and noise -warning clauses shall be required for all units in the development to achieve the indoor noise level criteria. The study determined that the proposed noise sensitive aspects of the proposed development will be feasible and it is recommended that further detailed noise assessment is required for each of the proposed buildings once more details are made available (e.g. civil, electrical and mechanical plans and equipment selections and materials are made available). To address this, Regional staff require a Holding Provision requiring the submission of a detailed transportation noise study for each of the buildings once civil, electrical and mechanical plans and equipment selections and materials are provided. The detailed noise study and any related implementation shall be to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. In addition to the Holding Provision, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented through a future Site Plan Agreement at the Site Plan stage and through conditions of Draft Plan Approval at the Condominium stage (should a condominium be proposed): 1. All residential units within Building Wand Building `B' of the proposed development at 1668 King Street East, Kitchener shall be constructed with air conditioning and include the following noise warning clauses in any agreements Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866V.1 Page 3 of 11 Page 271 of 350 of Offers of Purchase and Sale, Lease/Rental Agreements, and/or Condominium Declarations: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control features in the development and within the building units, sound levels due to ffic may occasionally inte increasing road trarfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Minist of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.,, ry "This dwelling unit has been supplied with a central air conditioning system which will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.,, 2. Outdoor Living Areas (OLA's) were identified in the study as being located on the second storey podium roof between Buildings A and B, as well as at grade to the west of Building B. The predicted noise levels at the OLAs exceed the noise level limits and require the noise -warning clauses listed above. In addition to the noise -warning clauses noted above, a 1.07m high parapet wall shall be required along the roof edge of the second storey. The parapet wall must be solid,a free and have a surface density not less than 20kg/m2, g p 3. Building Components within Building Wand Building `B' require upgraded glazing elements for the building envelope to ensure adequate indoor sound levels from transportation noise. The developer shall ensure adequate sound levels from transportation noise and confirm the assumed 0% (40% fixed and 10% operable) for living/dining rooms and the assumed 40% (30% fixed and 10% operable) for bedroom windows used in the STC calculations. The minimum fixed window STC requirements are identified in Table 4 and 5 of the re shown below: ort p Doc's No. 4145866 Document Number: 4151384 Version Page V.1 g 4 °yage 272 of 350 Table 4: Required Minimum Glazing STC for Building A Facade Space Glazing STC1._= North Lig iub'Duiino STC -30 East Livin?Ditiin_ Bedroom STC -30 East Living Dii ll 2 STC -34 Bedroom STC -33 South LivinzDuliva STC -37 Bediuom STC -31 West Ln-incDininp OBC Table 5: Required Minimum Glazing STC for Building B Facade Space Glazing ST01 Noi't11 Litiu?:Diuuin STC -31 Bedroom STC -30 East Livin?Ditiin_ STC -3; South Nest I Ln-rn?'Dininrs I OBC Bzdroom OBC \otes for Tables 4 and 5. I Based on 5M trinuoty to floor area ratio for livin?'daini, rooms a11d 4O°o for the bedrooms. �[%hea detailed floor plans and building elevations are available, glazing requirements should be refined based on actual window to floor area ratios. STC rcgnlremellf refers i0 {I.. alaziaa. Small leaks Through operable door and nindonvs are assumed. however. tight weather seals should be Provided to reduce such leakage to the extent feasible. OBC — Ontario Buildine Code 4. The location and installation of any outdoor/indoor air conditioning devices should be placed in a way that minimizes noise impacts and complies with the criteria of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Noise publication (NPC -300). 5. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspector will certify that the noise attenuation measures have been incorporated in the building plans and upon completion of construction, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspector will certify that the dwelling units have been constructed accordingly. Stationary Noise: Regional staff have reviewed the stationary noise aspects of the environmental noise study entitled "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Mixed -Use Development, 1668 King Street East, Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo Ontario" dated July 8, 2021 and the "Response to ROW Comments" dated April 20, 2022 both prepared by HGC Engineering and have the following regarding the stationary noise findings: The study has identified a number of off-site stationary noise sources that have a potential impact on the subject lands. These off-site sources include but are not limited to an Autobody Shop and Used Auto Dealership directly adjacent to the subject lands. The study identified the rooftop paint exhaust fan associated with the Autobody Shop Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866V.1 Page 5 of 11 Page 273 of 350 (Kitchener Autobody) has a noise exceedance of 2 dBA and the study recommends to mitigate noise from the exhaust fan through either a quieter fan or a silencer. It is Regional staff's understanding that the developer is exploring the possibility of source controls with the Owner of the Autobody Shop. This will need to be addressed through a detailed noise study. The Region has received confirmation by the Applicant/Developer that Kitchener Autobody has been consulted and the Autobody shop agrees to implement the updated study recommendation at the detailed design stage/site plan stage to attenuate at the source. The Region shall require a letter of confirmation from the Owner of Kitchener Autobody to ensure they agree to implement the recommended mitigation measures on the exhaust fan; all to the satisfaction of the Region. A holding provision shall be required to ensure this detailed study is completed and confirmation from Kitchener Autobody is received, to the satisfaction of the Region. Finally, although detailed building designs have yet to be provided, the study identified potential on-site noise sources such as cooling towers, exhaust fans, emergency generators and A/C equipment that may be associated with the lower floor commercial uses. These sources will require further assessment through a detailed stationary noise study determine any impacts to on-site and off-site sensitive receptors. Similar to the above, Regional staff require a Holding Provision (Holding Zone) be implemented on the entirety of the subject lands to ensure that the assessment of this aspect of the proposal (including the mitigation detail at the Autobody Shop) has been assessed through a detailed Station Noise Study; all to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Based on the above, Regional staff are satisfied with the conclusions and recommendations within the Noise Feasibility Study at this stage (Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage). As the detailed design of the building has yet to be known, a Holding Provision shall be required to obtain a detailed noise study that includes details relating to floor plans, building elevations, mechanical drawings, and equipment selections and the mitigation detail (source based) at the Autobody Shop and to obtain the letter from the Owner of the Autobody Shop confirming they agree to implement the recommended mitigation measures related to the exhaust fan. Furthermore, the equipment selected shall comply with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) NPC -300 Noise Guideline. Finally, the detailed noise study shall ensure mitigation measures for noise exceedance resulting from the adjacent commercial facilities and assess the impact of the development on itself and other residential buildings in the neighbourhood. The accepted mitigation measures and noise -warning clauses shall be implemented through the future site plan agreement or through other Registered Development Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866V.1 Page C of 11 Page 274 of 350 agreement with the City of Kitchener. In addition, the mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Offers of Purchase and Sale, Lease/Rental Agreements. Regional staff recommend the following noise -warning clauses to be registered on title for all dwelling units and that these be implemented through a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener. Furthermore, it is recommended that the following noise warning clauses be included in agreements of Offers of Purchase and Sale, Lease/Rental Agreements at the Site Plan Stage: 1. "Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of the adjacent commercial/institutional facilities, sound from these facilities may at times be audible. " 2. The Acoustical Consultant for the development shall prepare a detailed noise study when floor plans, building elevations and mechanical drawings and equipment selections are available and confirm that mechanical equipment sound emissions comply with MECP Noise Guideline NPC -300 at the development itself and other residential buildings in the neighbourhood. 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspector will certify that the noise attenuation measures are incorporated in the building plans and upon completion of construction, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspect will certify that the dwelling units have been constructed accordingly. Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject lands have vehicular access to the municipal road network via a single right-in/right-out only access to King Street East (Regional Road 15) and two full moves accesses to Weber Street East (Regional Road 08). The plans provided with the application propose the re -location of the right-in/right-out only access to King Street East and the retention of the two full moves access locations to Weber Street East in approximately the same location. The Region has no objection to the accesses proposed at this time. Further comments related to access design details will be provided through a future site plan application. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) entitled "1668 King Street East Kitchener Ontario Traffic Impact Study, Parking Study and Site Circulation Review" dated July 2021, prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited was submitted with the first submission of OPA21/08 and ZBA21/13. At that time, the Region indicated various concerns with the Transportation Impact Study and Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited has provided a response letter entitled "RE: 1668 King Street East Traffic Impact Study, Parking Study, and Access/Circulation Review- Response to Agency Comments" dated May 11, 2022. The Region accepts the conclusions and recommendations made in the response letter. Please be advised that the Regional Road Access Permit Application, fees and specific design criteria can be deferred to a future site plan application. Please continue to work with Regional staff on the detailed site plan drawings relating to access designs for both Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866V.1 Page 7 of 11 Page 275 of 350 King Street East and Weber Street East. In addition, please show the pedestrian crossing related infrastructure on the site plan drawings. Regional Road Dedication: While not required at this stage (OPA/ZBA stage), please ensure the road dedication along Weber Street East (Regional Road 08) is shown appropriately on all plans and the development is designed to accommodate the dedication as the plans support of the OPA/ZBA do not appear to show the required road dedicatioprovided in n. Stormwater Management & Site Grading: The Region received a copy of the "Site Servicing Feasibility Study" dated May 31, 2021, completed by Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz and Regional staff have accepted the study. Region of Waterloo Transportation Capital Program: Please be advised that this section of Weber Street East is anticipated to be reconstructed in 2027 as per the Region of Waterloo's 10 -Year Capital Program (TCP). Region of Waterloo International Airport The subject lands are within the Region of Waterloo Zoning Regulated Area and within the Take-Off/Approach Surface for Runway 08. According to the Region of Waterloo International Airport Zoning Regulation (AZR) online tool, the permitted building height for the subject lands is 409m Above Sea Level (ASL) and the maximum building height is 85m based on a maximum ground level of 324m ASL. The proposed building heights are 72.2m (23 storeys) based on the concept plans provided with the updated circulation. While the exact finished grade elevations for the development are not known at this time, please ensure the building height does not exceed 409m ASL. In addition, The Region of Waterloo International Airport AZR also regulates any construction towers/cranes for the proposed development. Any construction towers/cranes must also comply with the Region of Waterloo International AZR. The AZR online tool can be found here: ion. ult :/, Furthermore, it is recommended that the following noise -warning clause be implemented through a Registered Development Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo through a future Site Plan Application, Consent or Condominium Application: "Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that all lots and blocks in this plan of subdivision are located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and that directional lighting along this path and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern to some individuals." Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866 V 1 Page 8 of 11 Page 276 of 350 Hydrogeology and Water Programs Regional staff request that a prohibition on Geothermal Wells as defined in Chapter 8 of the Region Official Plan, including vertical open and closed loop geothermal energy systems, be written in the Zoning By-law for the subject lands. The following is recommended wording for the prohibition: Geothermal Wells shall be prohibited on site in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Regional Official Plan. A geothermal well is defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump systems, geo- exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling, including open -loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five meters unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation. Housing Services The following Regional policies and initiatives support the development and maintenance of affordable housing: ® Regional Strategic Plan o Objective 4.2 requires the Region to make affordable housing more available to individuals and families. 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan o contains an affordable housing target which is that 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 in Waterloo Region is to be affordable to low and moderate income households. ® Building Better Futures Framework o shows how the Region plans to create 2,500 units of housing affordable to people with low to moderate incomes by 2025. ® Region of Waterloo Official Plan o Section 3.A (Range and Mix of Housing) contains land use policies that ensure the provision of a full and diverse range and mix of permanent housing that is safe, affordable, of adequate size, and meets the accessibility requirements of all residents. The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. Rent levels and house prices that are considered affordable according to the Regional Official Plan are provided below in the section on affordability. Should this development application move forward, staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site. In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides, a mechanism should be in place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes. Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866V.1 Page 9 of 11 Page 277 of 350 Staff further recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs and mechanisms to support a defined level of affordability. 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 $385,500. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit, based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan, the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual household income for low and moderate $1,470 income renter households A unit for which the rent is at or below the Bachelor: $950 average market rent (AMR) in the 1 -Bedroom: $1,134 regional market area 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 rental unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units which have fewer than 3 bedrooms must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area as shown above. For proposed units with three or more bedrooms, the average rent for the units must be below $1,470. Fees By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the Region's Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment review fees totalling $6,900.00 and the Transportation Impact Study Fee of $500.00. Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866V.1 Page 10 of 11 Page 278 of 350 General Comments As indicated above, the Region has no objection to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment subject to the implementation of a Holding Provision for the following: ® Receipt of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgment Letter for the entirety of the subject lands (excluding the Regional Road Dedication) to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; and, e A detailed noise study for road and stationary noise has been completed and implementation measures addressed (including confirmation from the Owner of Kitchener Autobody that they accept the mitigation measures on their building) to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Furthermore, the Region shall require a prohibition on geothermal energy systems within the Zoning By-law. The recommended wording for the geothermal prohibition is: Geothermal Wells shall be prohibited on site in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Regional Official Plan. A geothermal well is defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump systems, geo- exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling, including open -loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five meters unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation. 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. 2806399 Ontario Inc. C/O Stephen Litt (Owner), MHBC Planning Ltd. C/O Pierre Chauvin (Applicant) Document Number: 4151384 Version: 1 Doc's No. 4145866V.1 Page 11 of 11 Page 279 of 350 Craig Dumart .From: kevinkellyf Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 20214:2'9 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] application for development in your neighbourhood Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada's largest network. Hello Craig, Just had cancer surgery home recovering now, excited about whats happening in eastwood neighbourhood, and fully support the new development. Just curious on whether crunch fitness still going to be around and whats happening with the old seegmiller area. Thank you Kevin Kelly Page 280 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Mark Jrschick Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2022 3:31 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Sarah Marsh; Debbie Chapman Subject: - [EXTERNAL] Re: 1668 King Street East OPA/ZBA Resubmission Hello Mr. Dumart. Clearly, the applicant has done their homework. Kudos. It, however, is still a major concern to myself and my neighbours. By the numbers, it says that Weber St. E. is able to withstand the extra would disagree. It is our opinion, based on experience living here, that Weber St. is already over used. The WRPS traffic. I, and my neighbours agree. They don't have the manpower to control the current speed and volume here. I don't believe addingmore c will ease their woes. Also, consider the traffic from the buildings going up on or near Weber St. would Shantz/Weber. Fergus and Weber. Fairway and Kin ars King this doesn't even touch what's ha Borden Ave. Kitchener. We all know that Kitchener needs more housing. Please Please no more aroundppening in downtown Weber/Jackson/Montgomery/Ottawa N. Thanks for your consideration. Mark Irschick --- Original Message ------ From: Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca To: Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca Cc: Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca; Debbie. Chapman @kitchener.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 2:38 PM Subject: 1668 King Street East OPA/ZBA Resubmission Good morning, The applicant has submitted a revised development concept which is current) bein reviewed by staff. The NEW revised documents can be reviewed here y g s List 633210 df Craig Dumart, BES, IVICIP, RPP Senior Planner Planning Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7073 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 craig.dumartCc)kitchener ca mW 1 Page 281 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Gina Georgiou Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 6:05 PM To: Pierre. Chauvin; Craig Dumart Cc: Stephen R. Litt: mh@vivedevelopment.ca; Sarah Marsh; Debbie Chapman; Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 1668 King St E project Good Evening All. I went and listed back to the initial meeting in October and I misinterpreted the study I thought was mentioned vs what has essentially been seen in Toronto. It was stated from Stephen Litt (45:14 minutes) that the deepest rental needs are smaller 1 bedroom orientation (thus why the proposed buildings will be 2/3's 1 bedroom plus den and 1/3 2 bedrooms plus den. He stated that families tend to be ground oriented (basically houses with yards) which are hard to come by in Kitchener. So as our land availability becomes more sacred, we must build a city, now that we have the opportunity, which supports all family sizes and room for people to have office space as well as more people are working from home due to Companies shifting their views of actually going to a work place. Below is the link to the original meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7waSHiiNUk for quick reference. Regards Gina From: Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcplan.com> Sent: March 2, 2022 9:35 AM To: Gina Georgiou Craig Dumart <craig.dumart@kitchener.ca> Cc: Stephen R. Litt <sl@vivedevelopment.ca>; mh@vivedevelopment.ca; Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca>; Debbie Chapman <debbie.chapman@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: 1668 King St E project Hi Gina, Thanks for your inquiry. We continue to work with City planning and urban design staff to review and revise the proposed design in order to address the many City urban design standards. As a result, the number and size of the.units will change with these design revisions. Our hope is to resolve these outstanding matters with Staff within the coming weeks such that the applications can be brought forward to the City's Planning Committee for consideration sometime in the spring. As for the documentation justifying the size of the units, I would ask my client (Stephen or Mark) to provide this detail as they are more familiar with the market needs that myself. NOTE: I am Working remotely and can be reached on my dell 9 below. PIERRE CHAUVIN, MA, MCIP, RPP I Partner Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 1 Kitchener I ON 580 4912 1 F 519 576 0121 1 pchauvin@mhbcplan.com Follow us: .gbb acre I Linkedin I Fac®book I Twitter I Vimeo N213 3X9 I T 519 576 3650 X 701 1 C 519 Page 282 of 350 I 4 � a SPOCIal Note: Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, we are moving the majoritY of our reducing our offices to minimal in-person staff. The firm remains open. We will mak staff to remote access and seamless as possible. a this transition as From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Sent: March 2, 2022 9:11 AM To: Gina Georgiou Subject: Re: 1668 King St E project Hi Gina, I hope you are doing well. At this point there are no updates to share. Thea applicant i Proposal. All supporting documents are available on the city's website and I am not aware o bedroom study you are referring to. When the city receives a pa s Forking on a revised recommendation is being made to planning committee you will be sed package and a alar of notified via Craig email and a postcard. From: Gina Georgiou Sent: March -02-22 9:08 AM To: Pierre Chauvin <pchauyinna mhbcplan com>; Craig Dumart<crai .dumart kitchener.ca> Cc: Stephen R. Litt <sl@vivedevelonment ca>- mh@vivedevelopment ca Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Ma Debbie Chapman <debbie.ch_ a man@kitchener ca> — Subject: Re: 1668 King St E project rsh kitchener ca >; Good Morning Pierre and Craig, I would like to get an update on the status of the buildings being proposed more. as we have not heard anything Also, during the initial meeting, it was mentioned that there was so there were no need for 3 bedrooms units. me study, or investigation, which showed As we start to build up this area, we need to allow people to grow within the building as their life status changes. Could you please provide to me the study that showed there was no need f or 3 bedroom units? As new weeks/months have passed since our last meeting, in the many articles I have read surrounding proposals, there is an increase attention to the needs of 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom and even 4 being planned for new proposed buildings (ie. 20 Ottawa St N, Kitchener) aka the mi bedroom buildings We need to plan smart as these buildings will impact our community for man t Ing middle. Y Years o come. Thank you Gina rn m • D;_- f -L- • '_'., � ICUVIH �pcnauvin@mhbcplan com> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2021 11.1 r nM To: Gina Georgiou 2 Page 283 of 350 Cc: Craig Dumart ZCrai .Dumart'Okitchener ca>; Stephen R. Litt <sl vivedevelo went: > <mh vivedevelopment.ca> o ca , mhCawivedeveloamPnt �a Subject: RE: 1668 King St E project Hi Gina, Thanks for your comments. I have copied representatives from VIVE as well as Craig. aig. Please note, we continue to work with the City planning and urban design staff on the design and buildings in order to meet the City's regulations and Guidelines. This is an ongoing an iteratmassing of the i ultimately the final design of the development not only achieves the City's guidelines but also remains compatible with uidelin ve process to ensure that the surrounding area. As a result, it is difficult at this time to confirm the number of balconies that will be facing King Street. We will, however, consider Your comments regarding the materials used for the balconies. Similarly, through this design exercise we will consider your comment regarding ao the site. Having said, please appreciate that the grades and configuration of the property to ty for a public access through p and/or safe. We will see what we can do, perty may not make this practical As for amenity space, we are required by the City to provide amenity space on-site f development. In this case, we are proposing both indoor and outdoor (rooftop)am or the occupants of the proposed enity space: Again, given the on- going design revisions noted above, I can't confirm at this time hothis will look and be ro ra assured, however, there will be on-site amenity areas provided. p g med in the end. Be I trust this helps clarify some matters for you. PIERRE CHAUVIN, MA, MCIP, RPP I Partner HC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 1 Kitchener I ON I N28 3X9 5804912 F 519 576 0121 1 cchauvinCa�mhbcplan com T 519 576 3650 X 701 C 519 Follow us: Wege Linkedin I Facebook ITwitter Vimeo s - F SPOCIal Note: Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, we are movin reducing our offices to minimal ing the majority of our staff to -person staff. The firm remains open. We will make this transition as From: Gina Georgiou Sent: November -25-21 1:44 PM To: Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcolan com> Subject: 1668 King St E project Good Day Pierre. I am a resident near the new proposed project on 1668 King St E. I understand that your only concern is for the building and not for any other issues around the city. 3 Page 284 of 350 Thus, I would like you to consider the fact that you do not have to live in this area once the building is built; You will simply just start on the next one and you won't have to worry about the impact of this building after day 1. We as a community understand the need of new developments, but if they're going to be built, Vive needs to work with the residents of this community and make this a great place to live. One of our concerns is the height and width of this building, the one that concerns for me is the one facing King St. This does not at all fit in with our current landscape as the tallest building here is 15 floors. There is no one in this area that has more than 2 people looking into their backyards, if any, and we get so much light. If you could let me know how many balconies, per floor, will be facing this way? Is there a way to build 2 narrower buildings in place of that one, in order to let some light pass through? Also, another concern that affects various people, are the students and teachers currently use a path between the school (on Weber), and the existing parking lot of the Schwaben club, to pass through to get to the bus stop on King. Would it be possible for you to build and pathway (fenced/covered) for the community to continue using to access the bus? Also, from my understanding, there will only be 1 or 2 bedrooms in this building. How about those families with 2 children who cannot afford a $1 million dollar house? These new developments should provide shelter for all. Yes, from what Craig said on the meeting back in October, that families who have children want green space, but, if they cannot afford it, shouldn't new modern buildings, such as yours, provide those amenities where people can sit outdoors, enjoy the sun, take out their dogs and have their kids exert some energy? Or were you just thinking they would go across the street to the calm Rockway Gardens where people go for quiet and pictures? Consideration needs to be taken for people who require 3 bedrooms, especially near a school and for the people who live in this quiet area. I ask you to consider what I brought forth, as you may not be familiar with our established neighborhood. I look forward to your response to how many balconies each floor will be facing King Street and if there is a way to have the balconies solid, so we don't see them, and they don't see us if they're sitting down. Thank you Gina Resident Page 285 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Katie Anderl Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 12:36 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: FW: Opposition to Application - ZBA21/013/K/CD (Kitchener, ON) Hi, I think this is for your application — they also commented on the 1001 King E proposal in a separate email. Katie From: Phil Roberts Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 12:29 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Cc: v� Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Application - ZBA21/013/K/CD (Kitchener, ON) Hello, I am writing as a private citizen, and resident owner of the in Kitchener to express my vehement opposition to the proposal redevelopment per planning application ZBA21/013/K/CD at 1668 King Street East. The Eastwood neighbourhood within which I live is a quiet and serene neighbourhood consisting of mainly single-family dwellings, which is the primary motivating factor in my decision to purchase my home here. This neighbourhood would be severely impacted by not only the visual uglification of the surrounding neigbourhood by way of impositions of tall structures on the skyline, but also by the unwanted population intensification which will manifest itself in many ways, including but not limited to: ® Increased intensity of traffic in, out and through the community, in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to establish safe travel speeds and compliance with road safety regulations. ® Increased traffic noise, again in an area where traffic enforcement is.already lacking in its effectiveness to ensure that vehicles operated in and around the community meet established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, resulting in further worsening of street noise already above a reasonable level due to traffic both along Highway 7 and within the community's own streets. ® Increased general noise directly caused by the population intensification in an area already plagued by noise not only from the aforementioned lack of enforcement of established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, but by increased air traffic in and out of the municipal international airport (YKF). ® Increased disruption by construction activities as the developer would implement planned facility. ® Increased crime due to the intensification of population in the community that this project will cause. ® Erosion of our voices as voters and as property owners within the physical boundaries of this neighbourhood. I ask that the City of Kitchener to: 1. Deny this application and prevent the project from going forward, 2. Withhold from use any funds from the tax base at the municipal, regional, provincial, and federal levels into which our community residents contribute, saving those funds from being diverted away from the neglected community standards enforcement already plaguing this community to further enhance profitability of the commercial interests of this property owner and commercial entities working with them. Page 286 of 350 3. Reject this application with prejudice so as to set a precedence to not further entertain applications of this nature in this community going forward by this applicant or by other applicants. 4. Not prove the ineffectiveness of democratic process by reviewing and subsequently ignoring this request. S. BE BETTER in its proactive and EFFECTIVE informing of residents affected by proposals such as these (all residents, at least within a 1km radius of proposed project sites). Sincerely, Phil Roberts, Canadian Citizen, Voter and Resident Owner Page 287 of 350 Craiq Dumart From: Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 11:25 AM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Debbie Chapman; Gina Georgiou Sarah Marsh Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 King St E Craig, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions in the past and I am hoping that I don't duplicate them, in many cases you have answered these for me from the perspective of the apartment building and what I am really looking for is resident mitigation so I am asking specific questions in relation to resident impact. 1) Noise - Refer page 2: Noise Feasibility Study provided with the application. Note: Traffic data is mostly from 2016 with forecast to 2031 This study also does not include air traffic Table 1: Road Traffic Noise Criteria Space Daytime LEQ 16 Hours Nighttime LEQ 8 hours Outdoor Living Area 55dba Inside Living Area 45dba 45dba Inside Bedrooms 45dba 40 dba Table 2: Projected Road Traffic Data Projected to 2031 hoaa name Cars Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Total King it E Daytime 11,610 120 240 11970 Nighttime 1,290 14 26 1,330 Weber St E Montgomery Total Daytime Nighttime Total Daytime Nighttime 12.900 19,992 2,222 22,214 9,428 1,048 134 412 46 458 97 11 266 206 22 228 194 22 13,300 20,610 2,290 22,900 9,719 1,081 Highway 8 Total Daytime Nighttime Total 10,476 116,112 20,490 136,602 108 7,258 1,280 8,538 216 21,772 3,842 25,614 10,800 145,142 25,612 170,754 Table 3:. Table 3: Predicted Road Traffic Sound Levels [dBA], Without Mitigation Prediction Description Location A East fagade of Building A Daytime — in OLA LEQ-16 hr Daytime — at the Fagade LEQ-16 hr 73 Nighttime — at the Facade LEQ-8 hr 68 Page 288 of 350 B South fagade of -- 71 66 Building A C West fagade of -- 61 54 Building A D North fagade of -- 69 65 Building A E East fagade of -- 72 68 Building B F South fagade of -- 69 65 Building B G East fagade of -- 61 54 Building B H North fagade of -- 70 65 Building B At grade amenity 59 space, west of _ Building B Outdoor amenity 59* area on 2 -storey _ podium roof Question: Future state has all of these exceeding allowable values. a) These levels exceed recommended levels and the study is using data from 2016 which may no longer be relevant, will current data be obtained? There are numerous buildings going up between King/Cedar and King/Montgomery (King and Cedar, King and Cameron, Borden and King, Borden and Weber, Charles and Stirling, 1668 King which will have an impact on traffic noise - what does that impact do to this study? b) Study provides recommendations to mitigate noise for apartment. What will be done to mitigate noise for residents? 2) Privacy In our previous conversations I understand some of the things you will be undertaking to protect the tenants privacy such as colored glass on their balconies. My question - what if anything will be done to protect the residents privacy? 3) Flight Plan We currently have a lot of air traffic, will these buildings require changes to the flight plan, or emergency landing plans? If yes, what are the changes? 4) Safety We spoke about people who cut through what is currently the Schwaben club parking lot to get to the high school and or the gym and from the high school to king st, and I know you indicated this is trespassing. I don't see this stopping and do believe it is a safety issue. What will be done to ensure the safety for people? 5) Who is accountable for damage encountered to existing resident buildings eg. windows, basements, should construction damage break vapor seals of windows from shaking/vibration during construction etc.? Page 289 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Imark73@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 10:03 AM To: c; 'Gina Georgiou'; Sarah Marsh Su Debbie Chapman; Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Floral Crescent follow up Thanks Sarah, I will resend any concerns I have as a question and send to Craig. As to my availability next week it is limited, couple of appointments and out of town for most of the week. Can you let us know what the context of the proposed meeting is and should this invite be extended to any neighbors wanting to attend? On Friday, November 19, 2021, 01:15:00 PM EST, Sarah Marsh <sa rah. marsh @kitchen er. ca> wrote: Hi there Janet, Gina, and Laurie, Thanks for the conversation yesterday. If you and other members of the public have specific feedback about the proposal at 1668 King St E, you need to address that directly to Craig Dumart so that it is considered in the report. To respond to your questions about how to make sure all of Council has an understanding of your concerns, you can share this with Debbie Chapman (cc'd) and /or myself and ask in the email itself that we forward it to all of Council. Craig, some questions for you: 1. Can you please confirm the deadline for resident comments to be sent to you so that they are both included in your report and considered in your report section on community engagement? 2. Laurie Mark indicated to me that in her letter addressed to you earlier that she raised the concern about kids needing to access King St transit stops to and from Eastwood. Recognizing this property is private, I do still think it is worthy of conversations to see if a walkway can be considered for public access. 3. Can we please make a meeting time for an on-site discussion on Floral Creacent sometime next week to discuss site-specific concerns and considerations? When works for you all? 4. Please confirm the appropriate platforms/email addresses for members of the public to share their more general feedback to the Region and the City about the overall growth plans for the community. The ROP (Regional Official Plan) is still being updated. Who is the main contact for the public to be in touch with? 5. One of the main concerns I heard from the residents on Floral is noise. I had a hard time understanding the noise study results and projections. How do they apply to the neighbours on Floral? And what are the mitigation measures to be considered if the noise levels are exceeding acceptable standards? Thanks for your time and consideration of these questions! Talk soon. Yours truly, Sarah Sarah Marsh Ward 10 Kitchener City Councillor Office 519-741-2786 Cell 519-807-8006 Page 290 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Singh, Bobby Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 1:50 PM To: Craig Dumart Cc: Lenore Ross Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 King Street East, Kitchener Hello Craig, I hope you are doing exceptionally well. My name is Bobby Singh with nmercial real estate. I understand there was a public meeting for the Public on the 21St of October. See link he htt s: a 2.kitchener.ca A Docs 0 enData AMANDADataSets 633210 FINAL%20POSTC OE.pdf This is an exciting project for the community. As such, a few questions I have below: • Was there any feedback from the Public for this development? • Do you think there could have been more density allowed here with respect to parking? • Does this site designate as a downtown jurisdiction? Thank you for reading the email above, and I hope to hear back. With best wishes, -Bobby Bobby Singh 1 Page 291 of 350 Dumart From: Sent: To: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 3:54 PM Subject: Craig Dumart [EXTERNAL] Fw: Fw: Application for Development in your Neighborhood - 16 Street East 68 King Craig, I am not opposed to meeting with you but I'm looking for some c then attended the meeting where I thought that we were going to dis clarity. I provided my feedback, happen. 1 am assuming that I am not the only individual who provided ss feedback and that did not on one or as a group?. feedback, so is this done one In addition one of the pieces of feedback that I provided was for of the meeting Sarah Marsh brought it up and the consensus wasat wasor students - at the very end this. the first anyone had heard of What happens to the feedback you receive? If you can clarify that would be great. Who is accountable to address the feedback? ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Craig Dumart <craiq.dumart@kitchener.ca> To: Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021, iu:ju:5-1 Am tDT Subject: Re: Fw: Application for Development in your Neighborhood - 1668 King Street Ea The meeting recording is not available yet .Hopefully early next week. It will be available on st application and documents are included on which was noted on the postcards you received. I f You wanted to time to discuss the application one on one with myself I would be ha on the same page the phone. happy to meet with you on site or discuss overthethe t up a Craig From: Sent: October 25, 20213:37 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Application for Development in your Neighborhood -1668 Kin Craig, I'm ho in g Street East p g you are able to answer a couple of questions for me. Due to a death in th was unable to attend the meeting via Zoom however did conference in which Purpose of the meeting was? I e family I asking any questions. So could you help me understand what the thought it was to address concerns however the majorityof thprevented me from p why, where and how they were to proceed? e meeting was the developer presenting What are the next steps and when do peoples concerns get addressed? Could you also please direct me to the link for the recorded meeting? Page 292 of 350 --- Forwarded Message ----- From: To: Craig Dumart <crai9.dumart(a)K1tcnener.ca> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021, 12:49:39 PM EDT Subject: Re: Application for Development in your Neighborhood - 1668 King Street East Thanks Craig, On Thursday, October 14, 2021, 11:32:36 AM EDT, Craig Dumart <craig.dumart@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Lori, I wanted to follow up with you to let you know we will be discussing the application more in depth at next week's Virtual Neighbourhood meeting. We will be discussing the planning process, and focus on comments received to date which include, parking, tower orientation, mixture of dwelling unit types, affordable dwelling units all which will be discussed at the meeting next week. The development proposal is in the very early stages and the rendering of the buildings has not been approved nor will that be the final design rather that is the first iteration. Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Planning Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7073 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 craia.dum�chener ca �17, 00 From: Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 12:38 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>; Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh @kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Development in your Neighborhood - 1668 King Street East Re: Application for Development 1668 King Street East I am writing to express my concerns with the proposed development. I am truly hoping that someone is listening to the voices of the residents of Kitchener as I read the Kitchener Record, it is not just our neighborhood that is unhappy by proposals to build extremely large buildings in their area (King & Borden, King & Pine) are also extremely unhappy. It feels like the no one is listening to the voices of the people. Have we voted in individuals who are not acting or representing residents and their best interest? First let me say that I love my neighborhood and my neighbors who are friendly and offer a helping hand to a neighbor in need. Many of us feel that buildings of 23 floors high are not compatible with a neighborhood where currently the apartment buildings are in the 2-4 stories and the tallest building Page 293 of 350 would be the building on King Stat 10. The proposed height of these buildings is concerning and extremely overwhelming. The buildings also seem to be in direct conflict of the 2019 King St E secondary plan that specifies under p Urban Structure; 16.D.8.4 The planned function of Major Transit Station Areas in Secondary Plans is to provide for a range and mix of uses and identify intensification opportunities in appropriate and compatible locations to support_ION while protecting the established character of ewsting ne hbou e g bol rhoods.' 16.D.8.5 Notwithstanding the Major Transit Station Area identification of the King Street Ea st Secondary Plan, lands proposed to be designated Low Rise Residential Limited and Low Rise Residential are not the primary focus for intensification. 16.D.8.6 Notwithstanding the identification of lands in a Major Transit Station Area regulations of the applicable land use designations and zoning � the policies and gr g may be more restrictive o ensure appropriate and compatible development and/or redevelopment adjacent to and within established neighbourhoods., I have many concerns and will do my best to articulate them. There are 9 building sites that are being built or proposed buildings (King & Cedar, King & Cameron, King & Borden, Charles & Stirling, 1668 King, Weber at Highway Centre) so it is impossible for me to voice my concerns for noise a only to 1668 King as the impact of all of these buildings is much bigger. nd traffic Noise — we currently experience a fair amount of noise from the Highway, airplanes, St. In the proposal with the application for 1668 King there is a study relating to noise, it indicates a es ber that the noise levels will be significantly over allowable decibels by 2031 and recommendations were provided to the builder for the 1668 King St building, air conditioning, reinforcement to the site as well as future warnings residents relating to noise. This alarms me that we have a study telling us we will exceed allowable values, and continue to proceed. It is unclear if the study is exclusive to 1668 King St or includes all of the other approved building's traffic and noise? What the noise for the residents who currently live in the Rockway neighborhood? ill be done to mitigate Skyline — I live on Floral Crescent and the idea of looking out my windows and seeing two apartment buildings and potentially a parking lot makes me panic. I purchased my house nlange established neighborhood where there are no tall buildings. I would like to see more than walls of a building when I look out the window or sit in my front porch. I would like to continue to see as much sky and light as I can and I clearly do not want to see any parking garage. I do not believe a buildin of this height is compatible to our residential area. g In addition to the daytime skyline, the night time view will have a negative impact on the residents of Floral Crescent with all of the additional lights. Page 294 of 350 Whatever is to be built here should be visually appealing to the residents that live in this neighborhood and compatible. Privacy I have lived here since 1995, 1 feel that our property is currently private — with houses on one side of the street only and no tall buildings. I would like my privacy respected, I am not comfortable and do not want people looking out their balcony onto my front and back yard. I believe that whatever is built on this site that balconies should not face Floral Cres. I am very serious that our privacy should be respected. I have lived in a high rise on the 14th floor and I am well aware that you can see, into the properties below you. Traffic I attended the meeting with the developer who advised us that there is no impact to traffic. I struggle to believe that, as how can we add that many residents and not have an impact on traffic? In addition, if we add all of the other buildings being built — I believe it would be negligent to say there is no impact to traffic. King St has a fair amount of traffic on it already, however once the `rush hour' is over it quiets down and is not bothersome. I am extremely concerned that there will be no quiet times with the increased buildings and it being the only corridor to the highway. Flight Path — there is no discussion on what the impact will be to the flight path or emergency landing procedures. Do buildings of this height impact the current plans, are there any changes, if yes, what are they? Safety — students currently use the parking lot of the Schwaben club as a cut through to the high school on Weber St and back to catch the bus on King St. The traffic light that is beside the Schwaben club was placed there after a student was hit by a car crossing the street. What will be done to ensure the safety of the students going to and from school? During the King St construction our houses vibrated and shook, this building would be much more aggressive, who is accountable for damage to our windows and foundation? Will the building be built with the environment in mind, solar panels, recycle, composting? What will the carbon footprint of this development be? Does our city have enough water to support all of these new buildings? Green space? There should be affordable housing units within these buildings for people on pensions or disabilities, if we are going to build — this should be done keeping our citizens needs in mind. The proposed rents for these buildings at $1,450 and $1890 are not affordable for the majority of residents, if we allow this to continue we are going to create a much bigger homeless problem that we currently have. I spoke previously to Craig Dumart who advised me that we cannot stop the building so I am hoping that someone out there is listening and looking after the existing residents of Kitchener and ensuring that whatever is developed is compatible with our neighborhood, our city and residents. It's one thing to say the property is mixed use and we can do it, it's really another to disrupt the entire neighborhood. The proposal also doesn't seem to adhere to some guiding principals from the 2019 Urban Planning report. Page 295 of 350 There is a very lovely neighborhood on the other side of the four lanes of traffic and Blvd so if your building on King St. you are building in my residential neighborhood. Lori Mark Kitchener, Ontario Page 296 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Sent: To: Sunday, October 17,20213:38 PM Subject: Craig Dumart [EXTERNAL] 1668 King St E - Proposed Development Good Afternoon, I received the notice regarding the proposed development at the of industry, I am all for increasing housingOpportunities,d Schwaben Ciub. As a part of the real estate neighbourhood. Given the neighbourhoodl feel th t the bu Id buildings should be cappedgreatly Opposed at HALF the proposed size for Privacy - I live on Jackson Ave and feel that my backyard could be exposed in thevi'ew from a building of this size and I'm sure that others in surrounding houses will feel the same. The neighbourhood cannot support the traffic that will come along with this. While a 15 min walk to the Borden LRT station, the building is not located directly on the route proximity/access to the highway, I anticipate that most residents we are located within about already experience challenges with findinga and, given the the road, and therefore those spots should be reservedof the building will have vehicles. Our street appropriate road parking given that we can onl also had significant traffic issues with many non-residents usingour y park on one side of for the guests of the residents on our street. We have caused numerous accidents and an unsafe environment for the residents, especial) th street as a "through" street and it has street, and the students at Eastwood Collegiate. I'm concerned with how this will affect Rockway Gardens, a treasured sol Y e children that live on the building will disrupt the wildlife in the area, it will shade the plans in the garden, ace of this neighbourhood. The neighbourhood views. g den, and obstruct the I support the development of a residential building on the site, however I feel that it should be capped at 10-12 stories, and should ensure sufficient parking for its residents. I truly hope that the neighbourhood feedback is given serious consid roving any plans for the proposed development, and thank you for the o eration before a MY contact information is provided below should You need to con act me pe to attendphe meeting on Wednesday, but Thanks, Shauna Lynn Simon Page 297 of 350 Comments to Planning Department October 17, 2021 RE: 1668 King Street East The fact that the MIX -4 zone does not have a maximum building height is being Put forward in the submissions, by both the development industry and the community, that this means this zone has "unlimited" height. It does not. A development's maximum building height in the MIX -4 zone would be limited by the amount of building floor area that would be permitted by the lot area and the arrangement of this building floor area on the lot based on the MIX -4's setback requirements from lot lines, including the setbacks from low rise residential zones. No maximum building height in the MIX -4 zone does not mean unlimited height and that an FSR of 8.0, 10, or 12.0 is justified and appropriate' New development should enhance the supply of multi -unit residential while protecting existing stable neighbourhoods, and should consider tenure, affordability, and opportunities to raise a family and age in place.2 Developers do not have us in their best interest; they are legally bound to maximize profit for their shareholders and investors. I do not say this as a negative, it is law. That is why the planning department and those at City Hall have been trusted as the gatekeepers and tasked with trying to find the balance between the current residents and developers on how the King East Neighbourhood will evolve. This is new territory and we will only get one shot to get the balance right. One of the first things I remember about the neighbourhood open house for 1668 King Street East was Mr. Litt announcing very boldly that there was "no height restrictions" but he would restrict this build to two towers of 23 stories each. Only later during my investigation did I find out that there was indeed a "height restriction" based on Floor Space Ratio (FSR). If the property was large enough, he could build his towers but according to this Zoning Amendment Request, his property is not, if fact this build is approaching twice the FSR at 7.2. The second thing I remember was Mr. Litt describing how the build would be close to the 401 and the expressway and yet he wants Zoning Amendment to 0.7 per unit and visitor parking at 1 Planning Staff Responds to Written and Verbal Submissions received 'Before', 'AY and 'After' the Statutory Public Meeting held on December 9, 2019 to consider Official Plan Amendment OPA19/004/COK/TMW and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/010/COK/TMW (Neighbourhood Planning Review Project) page: 415 Z https://www kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGenerai/Documents/DSD PLAN PARTS Rockway Plan pdf 1 Page 298 of 350 7% of that for a grand total of parking to 371 spots for 616 units, leaving 245 units without any parking for themselves or for visitors. The unintended consequences is that cars will be parked in the private commercial parking lots near the property as there really is no side streets in the area and no parking allowed on either Weber or King. It should also be noted that during the Committee of Adjustment meeting (A 2021-069 - 926-936 King Street East, July 20, 2021) another of Mr. Litt's builds, when the discussion came around to the reduced parking request, one of the members stated that if someone wanted parking, then they can find another place to live. Yet the justification for all this infill of large developments is based the lack of housing. Will people in the future have to choose on a place to live or a place to park? I also found during these open houses that when challenged on the size and height of Mr. Litt's builds in the King Street E neighbours he will suggest that one does not care if people have homes. My reply to that is of course we care; we welcome having these empty lots developed into homes. What we don't welcome is treating our neighbourhoods as "low hanging fruit" where the developments take away the character and make it an extension of the core. From VIVE's website: Apartment living is a lifestyle choice. We design our suites for individuals who want beautiful places to call home. Whether you are an empty nester, tech - savvy millennial or first-time apartment dweller, you'll find your vive here. Also found on their website are all the proposed builds. Did Mr. Litt jump the gun here or is the rezoning already a done deal and now we are just going through the motion? 1668 King St E, Kitchener Previously known for being an Oktoberfest favourite, the Schwaben Club's original home at 1668 King Street East will see new life through residential living. The proposed 'campus style' community development intensifies and supports the King Street corridor as an important thoroughfare, and becomes both a reference frame and gateway to Kitchener. Access to the downtown core offers residents an opportunity to enjoy everything Kitchener has to offer in terms of shopping, restaurants and entertainment. 1001 King Street E, Kitchener A celebration of history, this project will pay homage to the former headquarters of the Onward Manufacturing Company by incorporating original design details into this new residential development. A wide variety of amenities including a pool, dog exercise area and live -work units will provide residents with an exciting live -play opportunity, while also having direct access to the LRT outside their front door. 2 Page 299 of 350 I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture of what is being proposed along King Street East from Stirling Ave to the expressway. The justification for all the new proposed builds is to support the LRT and provide needed housing for future growth. After evelopments into study and review the City has set out a framework to blend these new din established neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods are made up of mostly single is dwellings, townhouses and low rise apartments with the except of Rockway Garden Village, 1420 King St. E and Eastwood Community 1414 King St. E, which up to now are the tallest buildings. Rockway Garden Village (55+ Apartments) 50 unit six -story apartment building. 38 one -bedroom units, 12 two-bedroom units onsite parking Eastwood Community 1414 King St. E (55+ Condo) 11 story building, undergrrn ,n q �. ,a king What makes these large buildings blend into the surrounding neighbourhood are: a) the narrow street profile b) all the green space and surface parking that has been left around the buildings. 3 Page 300 of 350 During the city's review we were shown what the city had imagined for the neighbourhood Green spaces and placement of taller buildings away from low rise homes. ... Facilitate redevelopment of the mid-sized site bounded by Charles St, Delta St and Sydney St. z- —� -- �\ New streets to y create frontage connectivi } and s� �e breakup the block y'pr + Taller etement looted 4 �?•` \ -/" -.., °" E I �r - z, r t _ _ away from to'. rise neighbourhood ' — At New open space to serve new and exis ng residents ,� . ,jpP��' • '.c ;.�, �'- ham" -�v � t - .fir �L r• --0 x But instead this is the option we are looking at. To truly understand the massing of the 1668 King St E build 1414 and 1420 King St E is shown in the bottom left hand corner of the first drawing from the Zoning Amendent Request. How does this fit into a transitioning of the surrounding neighbourhood of family homes? • �.... �uIIi vrcJ 1 UN KING STREET --1-11--, uN W aER a https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneraI/Documents/CSD_PLAN_PARTS-Rockway-Preferred-Scenario.pdf 4 Page 301 of 350 Proposed build 1251 1253 King E & 16 Sheldon Ave S - 24 Stories 5 Page 302 of 350 Proposed build 1001-1051 King E & 530 -564 Charles St E — 32 stories This building is so uncomfortable tall they didn't even disclose a picture of the full building in the open house zoom meeting. But what they did disclose is that the shadow of the building will be a full city block from King St to Crescent (almost half way to Weber St). Approved build 926-936 King Street E —10 stories CORLEY The Missing Middle: Not everyone wants to live in a high rise building. The King East Neighbourhoods are made up of mostly older detached family homes with front yards and porches and as Mr. Litt's states, there is a growing need for housing so why out of his Page 303 of 350 4 proposed developments, containing a total of 1,541 units, has he only allocated for nine 3 bedroom units? Address Stories Total Units 1- 2- 3- Outdoor bdrm bdrm bdrm Amenities 926-936 King Street E 10 98 62 36 0 Roof Top 1001-1051 King E & 530 -564 Charles St E 32 486 243 243 0 Roof of parking 12511253 King E & 16 Sheldon Ave S 24 332 221 111 9 garage Roof of parking 9 garage Townhouses 1668 King Street E 23 616 381* 235* 0 Roof of parking Total 1,541 907 625 9 garage +�I- uvvi Mali fui nvVfJ 17 —L1 In all of the proposed builds, there are only 9 units with 3 bedrooms. 907 units of the above 1,541 proposed are one bedroom, which does not suggest "family". This demographic they are marketing to have a different lifestyle and might be more suited to a more uptown environment. VIVE's open house flyer confirms that they are not developing for "families" "The apartments we build are aesthetically pleasing, comfortable and attainable — perfect for young professionals and/or downsizers looking for a stylish urban environment. Our vision is to create beautiful new housing that allows more people to choose Kitchener as their home." All of VIVE's proposed developments have in common are: a) Too large/high for the property and need site specific rezoning b) All the outdoor amenities have been place several stories above street level. The unintended consequence is a disconnection of community, how will these new residences be able to engaging or interacting with the surrounding community when they are 3 or 5 stories above street level? Although there are a lot of green spaces, golf course and Rockway gardens, there is a serious lack of playgrounds. 7 Page 304 of 350 The PARTS Rockway Plan was approved by the following Council 2017.4 resolution on December 11, Ensure Large Redevelopment Projects Are Supported With New On -Site Public Spaces: Rockway currently lacks centrally located parks and public spaces. The station area includes a number of large vacant or underutilized parcels that will likely redevelop over time in response to the LRT. Ensuring that these sites include adequate parks and public spaces is integral to meeting the increasingly diverse needs of residents and workers. Support the Diversification of Rockway's Housing Supply: Most of Rockway's housing is currently located in established neighbourhoods, with a modest extent of peripheral low-rise multi -unit buildings. As the station area continues to urbanize, it will become increasingly important for the housing supply to meet the diverse needs of a broader demographic. New development should enhance the supply of multi -unit residential while protecting existing stable neighbourhoods, and should consider tenure, affordability, and opportunities to raise a family and age in place. Establish A Focus Area Near the Borden Stop: The area around the Borden stop is anticipated to see major mixed-use and residential intensification. Its relative separation from established neighbourhoods allows for greater heights and densities to be focused here, while still allowing for a sensitive transition to stable low-rise areas. As such, the Borden stop focus area captures potential medium and high-density properties where the greatest extent of change and intensification is expected. Conserve the Character of Established Neighbourhoods: (a) Conserve existing established neighbourhoods by focusing major change and redevelopment towards the LRT stations and on lands other than low-rise residential. (b) Permit sensitive infill development within neighbourhoods, in keeping with existing builtform, scale and massing characteristics. (c) Ensure redevelopmentof larger employment areas provides a sensitive transition in massing and scale down to lower density residential neighbourhoods. (0) Encourage the transition of less compatible uses within and at the edges of stable residential neighbourhoods towards more compatible building types and uses, (e) Support the gradual intensification of residential uses along key transit or major vehicular corridors over time through the introduction of appropriate townhouse, stacked townhouse, and 3.4 storey walk-up development. M Provide for adaptability in the housing stock to meet long term demographic needs, such as encouraging secondary suites to support multi -generational living and first time home buyers. 4 httPs://www kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneraI/Documents/DSD PLAN PARTS Rockway Plan pdf Page 305 of 350 Transform the King Street Corridor as a Gateway to the Central Area: An opportunity exists overtime to transform the image and character of the King Street corridor through new development that actively lines the street; improves the spatial definition of the corridor and contributes to a stronger sense of arrival into Kitchener's urban core. In contrast to more retail -oriented parts of King Street, development here should incorporate slightly larger setbacks to facilitate more substantial greening of the street. mm � (a) Reurbanize the southwest side of King Street with high density mixed use development and the northeast side of King Streetwith medium density mixed use. (b) Ensure that active frontages are.provided in proximity to the Borden stop and provide standards in the zoning by-law and urban design guidelines for minimum ground Floor heights (minimum 4.0m) along the King Street mixed use corridor to allow for the introduction of local services and amenities over time. 4c$ New development along King Street should provide a minimum setback (approximately 2.0-3.0m) to support tree planting/landscaping, wider sidewalk and amenity/patio space M New buildings along King Street should establish a base building height range (approximately 3-6 storeys) to ensure new development frames the street, and then incorporate stepbacks a to reduced perceived scale and maintain the pedestrian experience. W New development should transition in height and scale towards adjacent neighbourhoods. In such circumstances, shadowstudies should influence built form transition in the rear yard with appropriate setbacks and stepbacks. Facilitate Redevelopment of the Sydney St., Charles St. & Delta St. Block While this area is located further from the immediate area surrounding the LRT stops, it is still only approximately 400m from the Borden stop with good transit access. Given its size and proximity to transit, it is an appropriate candidate for transit -supportive mixed use redevelopment. However, redevelopment on the site is constrained and must sensitively respond to its tight relationship with established neighbourhoods and existing residential uses. (a) Support redevelopment overtime with a mix of uses and building typologies. (b) Focus density away from low rise areas along Charles and Sydney Streets by having medium density along Sydney Street and high density further along Charles Street tc) Improve connectivity and walkability through the establishment ofnew routes within the block that connect to Maurice Street and that link Charles and Delta Streets. (0) Redevelopment should provide new park space to serve new and existing residents. PJ Page 306 of 350 Our responsibility is to provide a sense of community, not a room with a view and that view s may come at a premium. At one of the open houses the architect went at great lengths describing how perfect the view from the 7 floor looking out over the golf course. Thisprompted me to write to VIVE asking if they would be charging a premium for higher floors or for view. The following is the reply from Lesley Oakley, Office Coordinator. RE: 1668 King and other properties ONVIVE <info@vivedevelopment.ca> To: Ann Welch Good day Ann, Yal�oo; I,�L� F5 Wed., Oct. 13 at 3:13 p.m. Thank you for your e-mail. As we are in the early stages of planning for that particular development and others, I could offer some insight into the rental market in KW, and also one of our current projects that is under lease up at this time. In most multi -family developments, rental or condo, a premium is often applied to units that offer perks such as larger floor space, balconies/patios, dens, specific views and often times height. A unit on a top floor is often in higher demand from our experience. Although it is too early to determine if this will apply to the project at 1668 King and other projects in development, I can confirm that this model would likely be incorporated into the leasing of those buildings. If you have any further questions, please let us know. Regards, From the open house slide deck for the King/Sheldon builds: ® The proposed tower in the sky community development intensifies and supports the King Street corridor as an important thoroughfare that reinforces the street and will provide beautiful vistas to vast surrounding landscape, while the town homes along Charles add a diversity of housing typology. ® By carefully placing the principal building will enjoy views of the surround landscape such as Stanley Park,Conservs Area and the Rockway Golf Course. residents nts We also need to go outside of all of Mr. Litt's developments to really see the impact t neighbourhood of the additional future builds ha p o the peening. 432 Charles Street East, 851 King Street East, 5 Stirling Avenue South:s Unknown Approximately 3.25 -acre We concur with the general direction of the MIX -4 zone given the location of the property at an LRT station; however, we have concerns with some of its detailed regulations. In general, the S Planning Staff Responds to Written and Verbal Submissions received `Before', ' 9, 2019 to consider Official Plan Amendment OPA19/004/COK At' and 'After the Statutory Public Meeting held on December Planning Review Project) page: 448 /TMW and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/010/COK/TMW (Neighbourhood 10 Page 307 of 350 regulations of the MIX zones are very prescriptive and should be deleted. Development respond to its neighbourhood context and the architectural design for individual pro assessed by the City through the Site Plana should process. p perties can be approval 50 Borden Ave S: 6 Preliminary plans for the property contemplate a multi -tower redevelopment f 350 residential units and ground floor commercial space with frontage onto both Borden and Charles Street. Parking facilities would be provided underground,� featuring upwards of being provided. These preliminary development concepts have ontlemll ate mited surface parking also Floor Space Ratios of up to 6.0. p d a development with 1440 King St E:7 — unknown The landowner acquired these lands with the intent of redeveloping Dwelling" for residential uses. Upon review of the proposed designation and proor s "Multiple landowners are encouraged to see that the proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) are being m (or 8 storeys) is being retained. This maintained at 4.0 and that a building height maximum of 26 ( p p°ed zoning the will greatly assist with their redevelopment plans moving forward. The lands that run between King E and Charles E separates neighbours on ther will be accomplished with these campus style tower in the sky" for this co rido side. All that disconnection of the community that lives in the surrounding low rise ridor is cause a dwellings. Zoning Amendment Request: A site specific Zoning By-law Amendment is being requested to development within a High Density Mixed Use Corridor Three Zone MU -3 . The following special provisions are being requested as art o Permit the) Amendment to permit the proposed development. The details and justification site specific zoning request is detailed in the Planningp f the site specific Zoning By-law Justification Report. for the proposed 1 Seeking permission to amend Section 55.2.2.2 a) of Zoning By-law85-1 to Yard setback from the Weber Street frontage at 12.0m whereas 14.0m s re permit a rear No comment as I do not have enough information on how the setback Wouldqulred affect traffic visibility or pedestrian flow. 6 Planning Staff Responds to Written and Verbal Submissions received `Before', ' 9, 2019 to consider Official Plan Amendment Planning Review Project) page: S16 OPA19/004/COK AY and 'After the Statutory Public Meeting held on December /TMW and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/010/COK Planning Staff Responds to Written and Verbal Submissions received 'Before', ' /TMW (Neighbourhood 9, 2019 to consider Official Plan Amendment OPg19/004/COK AY and 'After the Statutory Public Meeting held on December Planning Review Project) page: 274 /TMW and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/010 COK / /TMW (Neighbourhood 11 Page 308 of 350 2. Seeking permission to amend Section 55.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 7.2 for the proposed building, whereas a maximum of 4.0 is permitted. The planning staff has spent hundreds of hours working with the community and developers to try to enforce the cities vision and needs for the King Street E Neighbourhood only to be met with requests for "site specific zoning requests" The staff has replied over and over again that this maximum 4.0 was not a number pulled out of the air but based on 31) modelling. This is so proposals like 1668 King St E don't over build and change the character of the community. I also believe that 1668 King St E is a "test" to how much a developer can push the limits. If the zoning change is approved for this property then all the other proposed builds by Mr. Litt and others in this corridor will have precedence for their own site specific zoning request. We cannot forget what Mr. Litt did with his build at King and Borden St. What would have been a perfect location for a low rise apartment or town houses now will hold a 104 foot high wall of concrete for the little block of homes behind it. And when planning staff told him it wasn't the place for that size of building, he doubled down. Mr. Litt's goal isn't to provide housing, his goal is to maximize profit and housing is his commodity. The more units he can place on a single parcel of land, the more revenue will be generated. The following are some of the staff responses with regards to densities and height: General Comments — Proposed Densities and Height Restrictions Staff Response :8 Through the NPR process additional 31) modelling was done to re-examine the relationship of FSR and building height to determine the most appropriate combination/correlation of Floor Space Ratio (FSR) with maximum building height within the MIX base zones. As a result of the 31) modelling, changes to the FSRs and building heights in the MIX zones were recommended to be made to better correlate the relationship of FSR with building height. The maximum FSR in each of the MIX base zones is proposed to be increased as follows: M IX -1-1.0 to 2.0 M IX -2 — 2.0 to 3.0 MIX -3 — 2.0 to 4.0 New MIX -4-5.0 8 Page 315 12 Page 309 of 350 During the preparation of the PARTS Plans, Planning staff determined that each of the MTSA boundaries could achieve, and in some cases exceed, the minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs per hectare, based on the maximum FSRs in the base zones in Zoning -By-law 85-1. With the proposed increases in the FSRs in the new MIX base zones, there is no issue with being able to meet and exceed this target. Based on the 3D modelling work that was done it was also determined that it would not be appropriate to allow an "as of right" FSR greater than 5.0 in the MIX -4 base zone, particularly with no maximum height requirement. An "as of right" FSR greater than 5.0 could have negative impacts on adjacent properties. Also, it is not needed to achieve the required density target in an MTSA. Properties wanting more than a maximum 5.0 FSR will need to demonstrate, through site-specific planning applications, that this amount of massing and height is appropriate in the location proposed and that it will be compatible with adjacent development. General — FSR and Building Heights Staff Response:9 In responses to the comments received at the various Open Houses with respect to the transition of medium and high-rise developments and their compatibility with adjacent low-rise residential areas, Planning staff completed extensive 3D modelling. The propose of this modelling was to determine the most appropriate combination/correlation of Floor Space Ratio (FSR) with maximum building height and to determine the most appropriate distance or setback of a medium and high-rise development from an adjacent low- rise neighbourhood. As a result of the modelling, changes to the FSRs and building heights in the MIX zones were recommended to be made to better correlate the relationship of FSR with maximum building height. The correlation resulted in a better relationship between the two regulations wherein a development would not exceed the FSR based on permitted building height and vice versa. The FSRs and Maximum Building Heights in the MIX base zones are proposed to be amended as follows: MIX -1- Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to increase from 1.0 to 2.0 MIX -1- Building Height to remain at 4 storeys or 14 metres MIX -2 - Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to increase from 2.0 to 3.0 MIX -2 - Building Height to decrease to 6 storeys, 20 metres from 8 storeys, 25 metres MIX -3 - Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to increase from 2.0 to 4.0 MIX -3 - Building Height to decrease to 8 storeys, 26 metres from 10 storeys, 32 metres New MIX -4 - Floor Space Ratio (FSR) 5.0 New MIX -4 - No Building Height regulation 9 Planning Staff Responds to Written and Verbal Submissions received 'Before', 'At' and 'After' the Statutory Public Meeting held on December 9, 2019 to consider Official Plan Amendment OPA19/004/COK/TMW and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/010/COK/TMW (Neighbourhood Planning Review Project) page: 413 13 Page 310 of 350 967-1051 King Street East (VIVE Developments 32 story tower) Staff Response:lo During the preparation of the PARTS Rockway Plan, Planning staff determined that the existing maximum FSR of 4.0 in the MU Zones would be sufficient to achieve an appropriate level of intensification in the MTSAs to support public transit. As mentioned in previous responses, 3D modelling was done to re-examine the relationship of FSR and building height to determine the most appropriate combination/correlation of Floor Space Ratio (FSR) with maximum building height within the MIX base zones. As a result of the modelling, changes to the FSRs and building heights in the MIX zones were recommended to be made to better correlate the relationship of FSR with building height. With respect to the MIX -4 Zone,.it was recommended that the maximum FSR be 5.0. This FSR permission will more than achieve the minimum density target of 160 residents/jobs per hectare that is required by Provincial policy in our MTSAs. An as of right-of-way site-specific FSR of 8.0 is not appropriate for the subject properties. The property owner is advised to submit site-specific planning applications to facilitate a proposal in excess of a 5.0 FSR. All proposals must meet the City's recently approved Tall Building Guidelines to ensure appropriate compatible relationships between properties with developments greater than 8 storeys in height. 926-936 King Street East (VIVE Developments) Staff Response:11 Contrary to the submission, a 10 storey building height will not provide the flexibility of the property at 926-936 King Street East to achieve a FSR of 4.0. The concept plan, that was considered at the pre -submission in September of 2019, did not demonstrate that a 4.0 FSR could be achieved on the site by permitting a maximum building height of 10 storeys. In actual fact, the concept plan that was submitted suggests that in order to try and achieve a maximum FSR of 4.0 an incompatible building height and inappropriate transition from the adjacent low- rise residential neighbourhood, which is also cultural heritage landscape, would result. 1440 King Street East Staff Response :12 The propose of this modelling was to determine the most appropriate combination/correlation of Floor Space Ratio (FSR) with maximum building height and to determine the most appropriate distance or setback of a medium and high-rise development from an adjacent low- rise neighbourhood. As a result of the modelling, changes to the FSRs and building heights in 10 Page 395 11 Page 387 12 Page: 275 14 Page 311 of 350 the MIX zones were recommended to be made to better correlate the relationship of FSR with building height. The correlation resulted in a better relationship between the two regulations wherein a development would not exceed the FSR based on permitted building height and vice versa. 50 Borden Avenue South Staff Response :13 Recommendation #5: That proposed policy 15.D.4.20 be amended so as to permit FSR increases of up to 6.0 for sites that are located within the Downtown and Major Transit Station Areas and subject to the same criteria set out in this policy. • Through the NPR work there was extensive 3D modelling done to re-examine the relationship of FSR and building height to determine the most appropriate combination/correlation of Floor Space Ratio (FSR) with maximum building height within the MIX base zones. As a result of the modelling, changes to the FSRs and building heights in the MIX zones were recommended to be made to better correlate the relationship of FSR with building height. With respect to the MIX - 4 Zone, it was recommended that the maximum FSR be 5.0. Planning Staff did test an FSR of 6.0 and found that this amount of floor space was not appropriate for the majority of properties in the MTSA areas. • It was determined that an FSR permission of 5.0 will more than achieve the minimum density target of 160 residents/jobs per hectare that is required by Provincial policy in our MTSAs. Recommendation #7: That the City consider lower parking minimums for MIX4 zoned sites. A lower standard of 0.6 spaces per residential unit, plus 0.05 visitor parking spaces is recommended. We understand that this lower ratio would be aligned with the Citywide Comprehensive Parking Utilization Study completed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions. • Thank you for the comment and suggestion. Except for the downtown, the draft parking rates proposed in the Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA) are generally lower than lands in the rest of the city on account of their proximity to transit and future anticipated growth. Upon staff consideration of comments and trends since the time these rates were first proposed, the MTSA parking rates for residential and non-residential uses will be further reduced. The proposed rates will be finalized in the coming months. With respect to residential development, staff anticipate a reduced residential parking rate of 0.7 parking spaces per unit (0.6 parking space per unit and 0.1 visitor parking spaces per unit) and may consider further reductions. 3. Seeking permission to amend Section 55.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a dwelling unit at grade (along the King Street frontage) in a mixed use building. No comment as I have very little information on this section of the by-law 13 Page 524 15 Page 312 of 350 4. Seeking permission to amend Section 6.1.2 a) to permit parking at a rate of 0.7 per unit for Multiple Dwelling Units greater than 51.0 sq.m. in size. I look around these neigh bourhoods'and I still see vehicles in driveways. Maybe some went from 2 vehicles to 1 but a transit system is only used if it goes where you want to go and unfortunately for myself, it is just quicker, easier and more comfortable to drive. Foreseeable problems in the future: Instead of counting the number of units in a building, it might be better to count the potential adult drivers. Based on only VIVE's proposed builds within the corridor, there will be between 1,541 and 3,082 adults living in these buildings with access to only 906 onsite parking spots and that includes visitor parking. ® 1668 King St E would have between 616 and 1,232 adults living in the buildings with access to only 371 onsite parking spots. ® 1253 King St E would have between 341 and 682 adults living in the buildings with access to only 199 onsite parking spots. ® 1001 King St E would have between 486 and 972 adults living in the building with access to only 286 onsite parking spots. ® 926 King St E would have between 98 and 196 adults living in the building with access to less than 50 onsite parking spots. 5. Seeking permission to amend Section 6.1.2 b) vi) C) to permit Visitor Parking at a rate of 7% of required parking. I believe that you are going to see a lot of conflict with visitors parking on side streets or private parking lots if this rate is approved. In a perfect world we all might want to live in a "campus style tower in the sky" and ride transit or bike or walk but the truth is we don't and it will be a very long time before the infrastructure is in place to consider doing so. "New development should enhance the supply of multi -unit residential while protecting existing stable neighbourhoods, and should consider tenure, affordability, and opportunities to raise a family and age in place." Thank you for your time and consideration Ann Welch Kitchener, On 16 Page 313 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Gina Georgiou Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 5:19 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 King St E, Kitchener New Development Attachments: processed-6daabb30-7dOa-4901-85fb-41715e315e82_GglcewKh jpeg; processed- f0cd2966-480f-42ec-ac41-dea37ae3dOee_tLTxbulO jpeg Hi Craig. There have been some notices sent out to residents regarding this development. Not sure who was chosen to receive these notices, because when we spoke to some residents, they had no clue. People have been told that there is no stopping this development, but if we cannot stop it, we would like it to be cohesive into our lovely and calm neighborhood. Based on the link you had provided me with, the traffic and noise will significantly increase in the area; 9 buildings being built in our vicinity: 1 at King and Scott, 2 at King and Cameron, 1 at King and Borden, 3 at Charles and Stirling, and these 2 would be 9 not to mention what will occur at Floral and Sydney. My house is in-between the Schwaben Club and Red Lobster and I face towards it. I work full-time from home and I don't want to be looking outside my office window to no skyline or light. We looked at the plans we found online for 2019, and there was no mention of any developments for this area. I am also disappointed in the signage that they put at the Schwaben club (see attached). This is not big enough to grab peoples attention. It should have been bigger and closer to the road so the community knows (such as the example attached). The city needs to balance residential and places for people to work, so they can pay their rent/mortgages. Right now, all we see are residential developments. As I said in prior emails, Vive is promoting this as "affordable housing". I worked on the math. I believe they said 1 bedrooms will be $1480/month. 1 person x part-time job (34hours a week, if they're lucky) x minimum wage $14 x 4 weeks a month = $1,904. This is not even including taxes deducted. This leaves a person a MAX. of $400 to pay their bills, buy groceries, and utilities (which I doubt will be included). This also discriminates against people who are on a disability or pension, or on any other government funded programs. They also stated all the places people can work at in their presentation to us (red lobster - 40 people, City Cafe 10 people etc) this is not an example of where a possible 1,000 people can work. There was an interesting article in The Record today. Since a lot of families can no longer afford a mortgage, would like to see 3 unit apartments in this building. This will also accommodate families with 2 children and also those who cannot afford a unit by themselves. 1 Page 314 of 350 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/10/06/kitchener-waterloo-housing market has the third-lowest-inventory-in-canada.htmI F Kitchener -Waterloo housing market has the third lowest inventory in Canada TheRecord.com WATERLOO REGION — The Kitchener -Waterloo housing market is on a podium "you don't want to be on," says one Canadian economist. Kitchener -Waterloo currently has about two weeks of inventory ... www.therecord.com These towers are not compatible with our neighbourhood and we do not want this to set the precedent that it is ok to build these monstrosities in this area. Also, parking is only .7 of a space per unit. I don't believe this will end well. A majority of people coming to this area are commuters who will probably require a parking spot. How are they ensuring that this does not get abused? We do not want to be monitoring.our streets for offenders. And the fact that there will be multiple people living in a unit, so they can afford rent, they will be likely to have multiple vehicles. Can these buildings be reconfigured so the long one facing King St be switched to be closer to Eastwood and facing that street and the other one be facing Montgomery? That way, we still get a view of our skyline and people aren't looking into others backyards. Gina Georgiou Page 315 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Becky Pagett Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 6:03 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 King St E Development Hello I received the project development notifications in my mail as I live in the neighbourhood, obviously. Although this stage says to submit comments, before I am able to do that, I have a couple of questions about the development I need to consider. Do we currently have any 23 storey buildings in town I can view to actually visualize how tall these buildings would be? Would any current businesses beside the address be developed into and/or taken over to complete this project? What kind of mixed use will you be proposing for the buildings? I think those were my most pressing thoughts for now before I can comment further. Thank you, Becky Pagett Page 316 of 350 Craig Dumart From: darlaine Quenneville Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 9:00 AM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 King St E Received 2nd "Post Card" re 1668 King St E. two 23 Storey buildings. Many of my neighbours thought these post cards were junk mail and failed to read them so are not educated on the proceedings. I forgot to mention in my 1st email that our area is on a flight path for the airport in Breslau. I do not think the people in the top floors of such building this height would appreciate the thunder of passenger jets and the whirling of helicopters. This project does nothing to beautify the area just problems of traffic, over population etc. as previously mentioned. Secondly a Virtual Zoom Meeting is impossible for many of the aging population who are not "tech savey" and to sit on a phone for one & half hours not feasible. Please listen to the tax paying citizen's and reject this project. Darlaine Quenneville Page 317 of 350 Dumart From: Grant Mitchell Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 4:10 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 King Street East Hello Craig, Thanks for sending the information leaflets and the recent invite to a Zoom call to our home regarding the proposed development at 1668 King Street East, I had a couple of questions. 1. 300 Parking spaces. I estimate there to be approx 10 units per floor and 2 X 23 story buildings therefore 460 units, are you sure there is sufficient parking being provided ? Based on other large storey buildings there seems to be a charge for the residents to use the parking will that be the case for these buildings and what will be done to prevent the overpill affecting the local area ? 2. Your leaflets highlighted a Decreased Rear yard setback, can you explain what this means please. 3. Expected timeline to first occupancy (assuming approval). Can you give an indication of the likely schedule for construction and occupancy please ? Thanks Grant Mitchell Page 318 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Nancy Martin Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2021 3:01 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 King Street East Kitchener This email is in response to a Notice of Development Application printed in the Record. Please tell me that there is plenty of green space — more than is required would be my wish - being planned for this proposed building site. Developers should not be the ones dictating to the city what they are including as green space and the city should not be caving to the developers' wishes. Concerned citizens such as myself need to be heard that while housing is needed and most of that will likely be 'up', unless we expect that our tree canopy and green space is honoured then I for one is not in favour of this development. Relying on Rockway Gardens across the road is not an option. The only refuge for folks these last months to maintain their sanity has been open, green space. I cannot imagine living in one of these 'containers' without seeing and experiencing something other that concrete and glass. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. Nancy Martin Na."..Mnxtin Page 319 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Lisa cadilha Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2021 12:42 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 king st kitchen I received a notice in the mail saying that there was going to be a large high-rise built close to me on King Street. I am not in favour of this for a few reasons first of all I don't like the height of the building I think it's too high. Not only would it take away from the landscape of this older neighbourhood but it would cause a lot of congestion with that many people in the small area the streets around where I live are congested with people coming and going off the highway to add At 23 story building is ridiculous. Kitchener is fortunate enough to have these small little pockets a beautiful landscape an older heritage buildings such as ROCKWAY gardens area. I truly hope that you take into consideration the people that live in this neighbourhood and that this wasn't a waste of time. Thank you for your time, Lisa Sent from my Wad Page 320 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Mark Irschick Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 4:41 PM To: Craig Dumart; Sarah Marsh; pchauvin Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for development of 1668 King St E. Kitchener ON Hello everyone. My name is Mark Irschick. My address ii house is on the north . /rner of Jackson Ave. and Weber St. E. We have lived here for over 25 years. We know her challenges facing rresid ntstre Tiding near or on Weber St. E. We moved here specifically because of the slim chance of development or in this case over- development. Weber St. E. has seen a marked increase in traffic flow partly due to King St. E. being forced into one lane, and also due to the newer bus flow. Both GRT buses AND GO Transit double deckers now travel past here regularly. Along with the high school, Eastwood Collegiate 760 Weber St. E. there are times when Weber is nearly impassible. Add to that parents picking up and dropping students on Montgomery Rd, Brentwood, and Jackson, traffic has really become unbearable. Now add 300 cars ( current parking spaces ) plus business parking, all flowing through King St and Weber St and you have an accident waiting to happen. Kids from Eastwood are constantly trying to cross anywhere on Weber St, some without looking. Cars, motorcycles, ambulances, fire trucks, police all fly down here constantly. Check the map and You will see a curve in the road which hinders sight for traffic coming from Montgomery Rd. Accidents have increased, near accidents have increased, traffic speed has increased, volume of traffic has increased. Please do the right thing. Find a different spot to put up the complex. I promise I will never endorse a development of this magnitude. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mark and Marlaine Irschick Page 321 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Gary Brazeau . Sent: Thursday, September 23,20213:31 PM u Craig Dumart; Sarah Marsh Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development 1668 King St East Hello I am writing to raise my concern and opposition to the proposed development for the subject location. development will adversely increase the density in this area, creating more traffic co issues. As well I feel that this project is too close to the high school creatin issue 1 ndofeI believe this congestion and other traffic related proposed residents. Also the height of this structure will disrupt site lines in the area in particular Rockwa g s affecting students as well as the well as I do not see it as an inviting structure to the entrance to our great city. y Gardens, as I do feel this area needs some type of development as it is looking tired and run down. Thanks for your consideration on this matter. Gary Brazeau Kitchener Page 322 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:34 AM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning Change 1668 King St. E. Hi Craig, 1. What size of building can be put in this location WITHOUT a zoning change? 2. How many units can be put into this location WITHOUT a zoning change? This proposed development is way to large for this location. Traffic in the entire area will be a problem. A development in this location should include mostly reasonably priced accessible units. It also should include a large treed outdoor space with tables and seating for the wellbeing of its future residents. This pandemic is a lesson for all developers and city planners. Jamming too many people into a small space for profit is unhealthy for everyone. Stella Elliot Sent from my Bell LG device over Canada's largest network. 1 Page 323 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Sent: To: Subject: Sarah Crerar Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:25 PM Craig Dumart [EXTERNAL] Re: development at old Schwaben Club Hi Craig, Yes, I took a look at all the studies posted, including the shadow study. However, shadow over our neighbourhood prior to 10:00am. This is hundreds of people wakingu in daylight/sunlight, including children and adults preparing for their d the information is missing on the The lack of enough parking for bicycles and cars is a huge concern. In multiple of work and school. p a giant shadow with no i is counting on people walking and busing everywhere. This is not realistic. There is alreadya wind tunnel down King Street from the north/west and people do not wal ple studies and readings the development k on King Street because of the wind as well tas the hat comes aesthetics being poor. There is a lack of trees on King Street East to block wind and create a more ' for people to chose to be a pedestrian. The studies posted address the concern of less. parkingb suggestingpeopre inviting atmosphere are there only 124 bicycle spaces in a 616 unit building? If here are not enough parking e will spaces,pat but if this is case, why spaces for the residents' bicycles. at least have enough The study conducted on traffic is based on a growth rate of 2.5% in Kitchener for the next 10 misleading. It is general knowledge that Kitchener is projected to grow at a much higher rate. J consideration the development at Charles and Sydney, which will be 1000's of new resyears, which is the 2 group home towers on Sheldon, Oneroof near King Street and the other as Just take into i expressway will increase the population. There's the new tower on Bo dents in our neighborhood. Also, away, Elevate luxury condo development will impact traffic. The traffic study is based on traffic studies done years ago Borden across from Knollwood Park. Two kilometres p t Brentwood Avenue near the and states a projected decrease in traffic. This is unrealistic. Even on Jackson Avenue there has automobile traffic in the past 2 years. Presently, residents at 1414 King Street East have difficult been an increase in parking lot, and turning in or out of Jackson Avenue has always been a challenge. There is a recommendation for no left turning lane on Weber Street in front of y coming out of their cause major congestion during high volume due to position of residents' amenities south east on We traffic study does not reflect what is truly ha proposed development site. This will Y peening on the roads surrounding the site. Perhaps, consulting with the er Street East. The community about traffic concerns would be considered. The location is great and reuse of the land is a great proposal; but 23 storeys is too high when wellbeing of Kitchener residents, and the increase to the population is beyond what the neighborhood taking into consideration the increases alreadyha g en considering the Kitchener is increasing at a rate much higher than the rest of the cother ountry, g borhood can absorb when regards to schools, hospital beds (which is already too low to accommodate our present Population), try, and provisions need to be made with community centres, green spaces, and infrastructure. The wellbeing of Kitchener residents needs to b with questioning, what kind of city do we want to live in? p °n). doctors, people over 55 years of age or a childcare centre. Or perhapsYoudo not lived indoes Kitchenehave a community centreddorlong r. My address is 36 Jackson Avenue since you were curious about my families direct impact from development. There has been many changes in this neighborhood of r in negative impacts. the proposed orhood without consideration Please consider consulting with people of the community first. Let Kitche residents which has resulted and well being of residents before monetary profits.ner be a city where we consider the health Sarah Soikie Sent from my iPad 1 Page 324 of 350 On Sep 20, 2021, at 10:20 PM, Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Sarah, Thank you for your comments. Can you please provide me your full address and name. Below is a link to all supporting documents for this development application including the shadow study which is within the urban design brief. https:HaPP2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenData/AMANDADataSets/Supporting Documents List 633210 pdf From: Sarah Crerar Sent: Monday, September 20, 202110:01 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] development at old Schwaben Club To Craig Dumart, I cannot express to you the sadness I feel about the proposed development on King street east and weber street east. When I witness the giant shadows cast by the tall buildings being constructed in Kitchener, I cannot help but think of the increase in mental health concerns regarding urban dwellers. The decrease in sunlight for the neighborhood effects the health of all its residents, and we all have a right to light. https://www.sciencedaily.comZreleases/2019/02/190226112426 htm <image002.jpg> Being surrounded by green space in childhood may improve mental health of adults -- ScienceDaily Children who grow up with greener surroundings have up to 55 percent less risk of developing various mental disorders later in life. This is shown by a new study emphasizing the need for designing ... vin,,ivii.sciencedaily.corn Two buildings that are 23 storeys high will eclipse Rockway Gardens which will kill a lot of the trees and plants in the historical park that every Kitchener resident has had family or friends' photos taken. It is the favorite place in Kitchener to have wedding, graduation, and family photos taken regardless of the season. Just 2 Page 325 of 350 stop by Rockway Gardens on any given weekend to witness the diverse residents of our city posing. It has been estimated the death of hundreds of trees in New York's Central Park will occur in the next 5 years due to shadows from new development. The drawing of the buildings on the postcard I received shows one building 17 windows and balconies wide along with 23 storeys high. The width and height of the building will cast shadows over the residents of Jackson Avenue, Edmund Street, Sheldon Avenue, Weber Street, and King Street. The city of Kitchener needs to reconsider construction of such large buildings for the well-being of our residents. While observing the immense construction of high-rise buildings in Kitchener, the questions are: "Is the city of Kitchener going to increase green space for all the apartment dwellers who do not have backyards?" "Where are the families and children going to find childcare?" "Where will they go to school?" StAnne's Elementary School is bursting at the seams with 6 portables and Sheppard Elementary School is at capacity. There is not enough childcare for the families that already live here, which was before the closing of Edith Macintosh Childcare this month. Doctors are fleeing Region of Waterloo because of the strain in medical resources. We do not have enough doctors or hospital beds for the residents that we have now. Ample sunlight and green spaces are attributed to physical and mental health for children and adults. Is the health and well-being of the present residents being considered? How many people are estimated to live in 2 buildings so large? Our neighborhood cannot support an inflex of 1000's of residents. What kind of city do we want to live in? Are we supporting the city of Kitchener's people mental and physical health? Has there been a drawing and examination of the shadows cast similar to this one attached? http://www.friendsofburRessDark.ora.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FOBP- Shadows-from-tall-buildings-24July2019.pdf " Shadows from tall buildings Burgess Park West/Parkhouse Street 25-33 Parkhouse St (Babcock site) - N/K but if 30m tall 35-39 Parkhouse St Dolphin Living .(Hunnex site) — Nine to ten storeys 5. Alternative designs o Buildings set back from the park boundary vs'�A,''�iV.l(lL{iCl�`J1 rLI_=SsOai rk.org.uk 3 Page 326 of 350 I am questioning the aspects of how a developer can be granted a permit for construction of a building that will affect 100's of people. Please forward the estimates of the shadows cast from the buildings at different times of day and the answers regarding increased green space, schools, and medical care for the residents of the new development. Sincerely concerned about my city, Sarah Soikie Page 327 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Nicola Hastings - > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:44 AM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at 1668 King Street East Dear Mr Dumart, I am writing to you with regards to the proposed development at 1668 King Street East. The current property is a low, one -storey building (the Schwaben Club). The proposed development is for two 23 storey buildings - this is taller than most apartment buildings downtown! I live on the southern side of Jackson Avenue. This new development will obliterate the natural light in my 1.5 -storey home, along with those of my neighbours. Why the council thinks it's acceptable to build such tall buildings to the south of a residential area filled with 1- and 1.5 -storey houses escapes me. Gentle densification of urban areas is essential to provide affordable housing to a growing population and to combat climate change and the over -reliance on carbon -emitting cars -'gentle' being the operative word. We need more developments like the condos at 1522 King Street E, or the new mix of townhouses and condo walk-ups on Borden Avenue. Such developments integrate into the surrounding community, blending into the local aesthetic without overshadowing the existing homes. 23 -storey high-rise buildings will not. Indeed, these new buildings will be nearly twice the height of the next -tallest building in the neighbourhood, the 12 - storey building at Rockway Gardens. There, however, the developers built a shorter, 6 -storey building next to it to reduce the risk of blocking out natural light to the homes in the area. The new development is doing no such thing, plopping two tall tower blocks just south of a residential area filled with low single-family homes and trees. I am urging you to reconsider this development. We should certainly build more walk-ups and townhouses in this area, but 23 -storey buildings would be catastrophic to the character and charm of an old Kitchener neighbourhood. Yours sincerely, Nicola Hastings Page 328 of 350 Craig Dumart From: darlaine Quenneville Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:19 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for development 1668 King st e. Today received notice of application for development in your neighbourhood. I strongly object to this proposal. We do not need thousands of people in condos/high rises in our quiet, unique neighbourhood. The denisty of people, traffic and crime our my main concerns. This development should be stopped as the developers, city hall and greed will ruin this neighbourhood. We already suffer from the affects of safe injection site, homeless on the streets & Montgomery Park, houses for addiction & mental health issues. From past experience with city hall I know my objection will be ignored but for once listen to the people in the neighbourhood. Darlaine Quenneville Page 329 of 350 Craig Dumart From: Gina Georgiou Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:10 AM To: Sarah Marsh; Mayor; Craig Dumart Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 1668 King St E, Kitchener New Development just received something in the mail regarding this development. This WHOLE Rockway community is against these 23 story buildings. There is no place for such monstrosities in this area. Affordable housing, not buying it. They told us in the meeting it would be around $1495/month (not sure what it all includes) for a 1 bedroom. This to us, is not affordable at all. 1 person x part-time job (34hours a week, if they're lucky) x minimum wage $14 x 4 weeks a month = $1,904. This is not even including taxes deducted. This leaves a person a MAX. of $400 to pay their bills, buy groceries, utilities if not included. They also stated all the places people can work at in their presentation to us (red lobster - 40 people, City Cafe 10 people etc) this is not an example of where a possible 1,000 people can work. They also stated this will not affect traffic in our area, also not buying it. Also, 300 parking spots only for min 1,000 residents, also, i do not foresee this even being manageable. They also stated that the shadow will only affect the school's yard. How are students supposed to play on a field that has no grass because there is no sun. Also, have they also researched if it affects the beautiful gardens which people come to relax, have a coffee, read books, and all the seniors that come here for their outtings? This is a hard no. Maybe a couple shorter buildings would be better, but an absolute hard no from me and my neighbours on the proposed 23 stories. We were told by many other neighbours in surrounding areas that Vive Developers are not to be trusted. I assure you, that all memebers in this community will be scrutinizing every line of what they say. Thank you Gina From: Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 20217:41 PM To: Gina Georgiou Mayor <mayor@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: 1668 King St E, Kitchener New Development Thanks for sending this and for letting us know about the proposed plans. As Sarah F. mentioned, none of this has been officially submitted to the city, but if and when we receive them, a formal public meeting will be planned to gather feedback about it. The site owner would be in communication with city planning staff to go back and forth on finalizing the proposal, based on professional feedback as well as the neighbourhood feedback. It would then come before Council to seek approval. This process usually takes about 4-6 months, starting from when the project is first submitted, just to give you a sense of the timelines. Take good care. Sincerely, Page 330 of 350 Sarah Sarah Marsh Ward 10 Kitchener City Councillor Office 519-741-2786 Cell 519-807-8006 Sarah.marsh @kitchener.ca 24/7 Contact Centre 519-741-2345 www.kitchener.ca From: Gina Georgiou Sent: June 22, 20218:49 AM To: Mayor <mayor@kitchener.ca> Cc: Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 1668 King St E, Kitchener New Development Good Morning. I finally got the presentation from Vive. Please review their plans. Thankyou Gina From: Gina Georgiou . Sent: Monday, June 21, 20215:09 PM To: Mayor <mayor@kitchener.ca> Cc: Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: 1668 King St E, Kitchener New Development Good afternoon. We had the meeting with Vive, and I am awaiting the PowerPoint presentation to forward onto you. The residents here are not impressed. They are proposing 2 buildings, 25 floors high, with approx 295 units in the one and 321 units in the other (the Wilson buildings are only 15 floors to put it in size comparison). The buildings are s000 massive, I am surprised more of the area wasn't included. Their plan is also to buy the rest of the businesses and build more. They say the shade only affects Eastwood's school yard, how will that affect football or soccer without grass? I'm sure it will also affect the needed sun for the gardens to flourish. They stated that they are affordable housing 1 bedroom $1495 and 2 bedrooms $1800. 1 asked them if they have a plan to a) ensure people outside the area /commuters, aren't hijacking all the affordable housing that local residents who live and work here can rent. We need more housing people can buy, not just rent (which are popping up everywhere). The community is ready to fight this. If they were 10 story buildings it would probably go over better, but 25 stories (approx 900) people total, I don't see it working. They stated that they're only designating .6 of a parking space because they want to attract people to use the LRT, but as a former resident of 1522 King St E, where all units were allowed only 1 vehicle, there were many offenders who parked in visitors spots and I had to call by-laws. On Floral Cres, we already have people who go to Red Lobster parking on our street. Be in touch soon Gina Georgiou and Lori Mark Page 331 of 350 Get Outlook for Android From: Sarah FitzPatrick <Sarah.FitzPatrick@kitchener.ca> on behalf of Mayor <mayor@kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, June 11, 20213:47:06 PM To: 'Gina Georgiou' Cc: Sarah Marsh <Sarah.Marsh@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: 1668 King St E, Kitchener New Development Hi Gina, Thank you for reaching out and sharing your and your neighbours concerns about this project. I have copied the Ward Councillor, Sarah Marsh, on this email so that she is also aware of the potential development, this meeting and your concerns. I have also reached out to staff in the Planning Department and it doesn't look like they have applied for a Development Application yet so we don't have information on this project yet either, but we have flagged the development for staff so that they are aware as well. Thank you, Sarah Sarah FitzPatrick (she/her) Executive Assistant to the Mayor I Office of the Mayor and Council I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext.7859 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 sarah.fitzoatrick@kitchener.ca 0 ;a a 0 mm". From: Gina Georgiou Sent: Friday, June 11, 20218:30 AM To: Mayor <mayor@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1668 King St E, Kitchener New Development Good Morning Mr. Vrbanovic. I have a few concerns about what neighbours are stating on our neighbourhood chat. A few of us, that face this new proposed site (currently the Schwaben Club), received a letter from the new developers. We spoke to some neighbours on the street behind us, and they have not received such letter. I believe everyone near this site needs to be informed, not a select few. We have shared this letter on the community's chat, to inform residents, as well as to encourage them to show up to the zoom meeting to address concerns. However, as you can see below, the comments are not reassuring that our voices will be heard and that the developers will just do what they want. The Rockway area is a quiet community, where people come to get away from the hustle and bustle and relax at the gardens, or take a nice quiet stroll. 3 Page 332 of 350 With the new developments where the former Howard Johnson was, they are'adding a huge development there that will increase the traffic at our local grocery stores. We are concerned, that no matter what we say, these developers will just do what they want (see comments below). How do we ensure our voices are heard, and they don't develop a monstrosity of a building since we are right at the express way? We all want Rockway to remain a staple of calm and serenity. Please note that the meeting has not taken place yet, so we have no idea of their proposal, I just wanted to ask so I can ease the concerns to those who are skeptical with these new developers who seem to be bullys. 1668 Wng Street Easi, I itchener A Noroic-d rok.- 9 0f.wui ipwent Iit gf-of tdytlimiri.ity vz-irylking ata;, thu FA'�I wcad r .g]'4noft;sd In k-111.01prOf Arid We Ter zeowiq ffwvoard to saari+il Rc frlhtfr You to W1418 J rrew, �-Lt�,3iii41]{'i.�-�y�CfP. vipflaiih -: a�4lrtril?r: �ts7 ^G'Cffl °�G7 n�C;r',�'="+'rr�7c swat. �17]Sj.lc..,'-3� a�Ytf � T �,_ed4Kk,ia(+nr.tp,PLPRnut �iA,1nr'-,Lf,7 :�gr6-r WOOD OU t a r rif l'-' (ri �! I",, n1�Ck1=r F.' u 3 4J,Ir.:r r tlt [l _i. r t B� t r i Ct lr ru fl ri trr 1 rct r.'r i tFr a . I' dalar .a- tr t r f r r, 7rrlr F .7 tr Fri er7 r pfl .; a t 7i7li.tl, a �E - 1 err r, rtlria ntl:rts,T�tJ111`��i,,_)-. 4 Page 333 of 350 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 1668 King Street East Page 334 of 350 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 1668 King Street East INDEX SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee of September 12, 2022 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council Page 335 of 350 AMENDMENT NO. 118 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 —TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener (1994). This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive. SECTION 2 — PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to amend: • Map 10 — Secondary Plan - King Street East Neighbourhood Plan For Land Use by redesignating lands, municipally addressed as 1668 King Street East from Mixed Use Corridor' with Special Policy T to `Mixed Use Corridor' with Special Policy 7" • Adding Policy 13.2.3.7 to Section 13.2.3 to permit a maximum floor space ratio of 7.2: o Specific Policy 13.2.3.7 amends one policy in the Mixed Use Corrdior use designation: ■ Policy 13.2.2.7 is amended to permit a maximum floor space ratio of 7.2. SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT Planning Analysis: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25. Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; g) The minimization of waste; h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; p) The appropriate location of growth and development; q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it directs how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: Page 336 of 350 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable, healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus, rapid transit, and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed multiple dwelling development represents an attainable form of market-based housing. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a mixed-use multiple dwelling development that is compatible with the surrounding community, helps manage growth, is transit supportive and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. The subject lands are in close proximity to transit and parks. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; Page 337 of 350 ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area, and within an Urban Corridor in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. Urban Corridors are identified as a Primary Intensification Area in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan on Map -2. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. The proposed development is also proposing to include several unit types, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. The Region of Waterloo have indicated they have no objections to the proposed application (Appendix `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community. The subject lands are designated `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1" (Map 10) in the King Street East Secondary Plan (1994 Official Plan). The Mixed Use Corridor land use designation provides residential redevelopment opportunities together with appropriate commercial and institutional uses that primarily serve adjacent residential neighbourhoods. Over time it is intended that the Mixed Use Corridors shall intensify and provide a balanced distribution Page 338 of 350 of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses. The policies of Special Policy Area 1 were deleted through OPA 111. The applicant is proposing to add Special Policy Area 7 to the King Street East Secondary Plan to allow a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.2 whereas the current Official Plan policies allow for a maximum FSR of 4.0 with an additional 1.0 FSR permitted if a 1000 square metre or larger food store is located within the mixed-use development. The proposed increase to the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is also required to support the proposed built form, which includes above grade structured parking internal to the building. Due to the significant grade change on site, underground site contamination and a high water table only one level of below -grade parking structure is feasible. As such, 3 levels of above grade parking internal to the building with one level of above grade deck parking are proposed. The parking structure is proposed to be wrapped with dwelling units along King Street East and Weber Street East and therefore screened from view although still contributing to FSR. The parking structure by itself represents an FSR of about 1.6. The amount of floor space occupied by the multiple dwelling units and commercial space represents an FSR of about 5.6, which is only slightly above the allowable FSR. City policies support the construction of structured parking in order to maximize intensification opportunities and minimize surface parking. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed increase to the FSR is appropriate. Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area in key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Major Transit Station Areas, Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within an `Urban Corridor' in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. Urban Corridors are identified as a Primary Intensification Area in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan on Map -2. Urban Corridors are generally linear in form and are located along existing or planned transit corridors. They are intended to have strong pedestrian linkages and be integrated with neighbouring residential and employment uses. The subject lands have direct access to two regional transit corridors which have multiple bus routes, access to Highway 8 and Highway 7. According policy 3.C.2.38 of the Official Plan, the planned function of Urban Corridors is to provide for a range of retail and commercial uses and intensification opportunities that should be transit - supportive. Urban Corridors function as the spine of a community as well as a destination for surrounding neighbourhoods. Strengthening linkages and establishing compatible interfaces between the Urban Corridors and surrounding Community Areas and Industrial Employment areas are priorities for development in these areas. The proposed development is planned for mixed-use which provides 184.4 square metres of retail/commercial along the King Street East frontage and provides for 616 purpose-built rental units. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that not only complies with the City's policies for an Urban Corridor but also contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally -friendly city. Page 339 of 350 Neiahbourhood Plannina Review (NPR 1668 King Street East is within the King East Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) area. A statutory public meeting was held on December 9, 2019 regarding draft amendments to the King Street Secondary plan. The proposed Official Plan designation for the site is `Mixed Use' and the proposed zoning is `Medium to High Rise Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3)'. The NPR project is under review and updated draft land use designations and zoning will be considered in 2023. Urban Design The City's urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. In the opinion of staff, the proposed development meets the intent of these policies, specifically: Streetscape; Safety; Universal Design; Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and Scale Design. To address these policies, an Urban Design Brief and Design Report was submitted and has been reviewed by City staff. The Urban Design Brief outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed zoning by-law regulations. Streetscape — The King Street East frontage is activated by at -grade commercial units, with 184.4 square metres of commercial space proposed along the King Street East frontage. Furthermore, both buildings' principal entrances and lobbies are located at grade with direct access to public sidewalks. Both towers include podiums that have defined bases which will enhance the streetscape. Safety — As part of the site plan approval process, staff will ensure Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site meets the Ontario Building Code and the City's Emergency Services Policy. Universal Design — The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code. Skyline — The proposed towers will provide a new feature on the City's skyline. The proposed buildings will create visual interest from several different vantage points. Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale — The subject site is designed to have a development that will be developed at a scale that is compatible with the existing and planned built form for the surrounding neighbourhood. The two towers have well defined podiums and building step backs which helps enhance the public realm. Massing is broken up at the 8th and 12th storeys on both towers which mitigate overlook issues and shadow impacts. Tower Design The proposed building tower A (building located along King Street East) is classified as a "Compact Slab" as the proposed tower floor plate is less than 850 square metres in area. The tower placement has been oriented towards King Street with an 8 storey podium and building step backs at the 12th floor. The tower massing is broken up vertically by variation and the articulation of building materials. Furthermore, balconies for the residential units are included on the street -facing elevations. The proposed building tower B (building located along Weber Street East) is classified as a "Compact Point'. Building B has well defined 8 stower podium along Weber Street which increases to 12 floors and then 23 floors. Like building A, the massing of building B is broken up Page 340 of 350 vertically by variation and the articulation of building materials. Furthermore, balconies for the residential units are included on the street -facing elevations. Shadow Impact Study The owner has completed a Shadow Impact Study in addition to the Urban Design Report. Staff have reviewed the study and are satisfied the shadow study meets the City's requirements, with respect to shadow impacts, as noted in the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Wind Study A wind study was prepared for the consideration of this development proposal and reviewed by staff. The wind conditions surrounding the proposed development are generally suitable. The submitted Preliminary Wind Study indicates less than ideal wind conditions for the on-site amenity area. Wind control features will be required through the site plan application staff as will a full Wind Assessment be required and reviewed at the site plan application stage. Tall Building Guidelines The proposed development has also been reviewed for compliance with the City's Design for Tall Buildings Guidelines. The objective of this document is to: • achieve a positive relationship between high-rise buildings and their existing and planned context; • create a built environment that respects and enhances the city's open space system, pedestrian and cyclist amenities and streetscapes; • create human -scaled pedestrian -friendly streets, and attractive public spaces that contribute to livable, safe and healthy communities; • promote tall buildings that contribute to the view of the skyline and enhance orientation, wayfinding and the image of the city; • promote development that responds to the physical environment, microclimate and the natural environment including four season design and sustainability; and, • promote tall building design excellence to help create visually and functionally pleasing buildings of architectural significance. The proposed development concept has been reviewed with these objectives in mind. City staff has confirmed that the proposed towers are generally consistent with and meet the overall intent of the City's Design for Tall Building Guidelines. More specifically, the proposed development meets the onsite and offsite separation distance requirements of the Design for Tall Building Guidelines. Transportation Policies: The Official Plan supports an integrated transportation system which incorporates active transportation, allows for the movement of people and goods and promotes a vibrant, healthy community using land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a wide range of transportation choices viable. The subject lands are located along King Street and Weber Street both which have multiple bus routes (GRT Routes 7 and 8) and stops located within walking distance. The building has excellent access to cycling networks, including existing on and off- street cycling facilities. The location of the subject lands, in the context of the City's integrated transportation system, supports the proposal for transit -oriented development on the subject lands. Page 341 of 350 The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications will support a more intensive mixed-use residential development in a location that is supported by the transportation network. The location of the proposed buildings, secured through the proposed site-specific provisions, will result in a built form that fosters walkability within a pedestrian -friendly environment that allows walking to be safe, comfortable, barrier -free and a convenient form of urban travel. At future site plan approval processes, the design of the buildings will have to feature a high- quality public realm to enhance the identity of the area and create gathering points for social interaction, community events and other activities. Additionally, secured and visitor bicycle parking will be required the Zoning By-law. Housing Policies: Section 4.1.1 of the City's Official Plan contains policies with the primary objective to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed development increases the amount of multiple dwelling units available in the city. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types including, one and two-bedroom units. Theses new units will meet and appeal to a variety of household needs. Sustainable Development Section 7.C.4.1 of the City's Official Plan ensures developments will increasingly be sustainable by encouraging, supporting and, where appropriate, requiring: a) compact development and efficient built form; b) environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and construction practices; c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; d) the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and, e) transit -supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active modes of transportation such as cycling and walking. Development applications are required to demonstrate that the proposal meets the sustainable development policies of the Plan and that sustainable development design standards are achieved. Sustainable development initiatives will be further implemented at the site planning stage through the detailed design of the buildings. Official Plan Conclusions The Official Plan Amendment application requests that the land use designation as shown on Map 10 — King Street East Secondary Plan be changed from `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1' to `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 7'. Based on the above -noted policies and planning analysis, staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents good planning and recommends that the proposed Official Plan Amendment be approved. Page 342 of 350 SECTION 4—THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan (1994) is hereby amended as follows: a) Amend Map No. 10 — Secondary Plan - King Street East Neighbourhood Plan For Land Use by designating the lands, municipally addressed as 1668 King Street East, as `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy 7" instead of `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy T, as shown on the attached Schedule `A'; 10 Page 343 of 350 APPENDIX 1: Notice of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (September 12, 2022) NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING ° fora development in your neighbourhood 1668 Wing Street East iT iF.i Have Your Voice Heard! Date: September "12, 2022 Time. 6.00 p.m. rf:Z' Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West O rVirtual Zoom Meeting N , y C * 1 To view the staff report. agenda, find meeting details or to � appear asa delegation, visit. Concept Drawing kiitchenerca/"meetings To lea snore about this project, including information on your 1� appeal rights, visit:. i ww,kitchener.ca/ '* y y : i �,� �� PI2�nr11n�plicativns 0 or contact: Mixed Use 22 bt 23 616 Dwell+nE Craig Durnart, Senior Planner Development storeys U'rnits 519,741.2200 x 7073 craig.durnart�4, kitchener.ca Official Plan and Zoning By-lawAmendment applicationswiJl be considered to fac[Iitate a mined -use developmentwith two (2) buildings, 22 and 23 store sin height, having 616 dwelling units, 204 square metres of commercial floor area, a Floor Space Ratio FSP) of 7.2, a reduced parking requirementand reduced rearyard building setbacks. Page 344 of 350 APPENDIX 2: Minutes of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (September 12, 2022) 12 Page 345 of 350 APPENDIX 3 - Minutes of the Meeting of City Council (September 26, 2022) 13 Page 346 of 350 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING F fora development in your neighbourhood 1668 King Street East= i �� Have Your Voice Heard! Concept Drawing Date: September 12, 2022 Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West orirtual Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, find meeting details or to appear as a delegation, visit: kitchener.ca/meetings To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchenenca/ Pla n n i ngAppl ications or contact: Mixed Use 22 Et 23 616 Dwelling Craig Dumart, Senior Planner Development Storeys Units 519.741.2200 x 7073 craig.dumart@ kitchener.ca Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications will be considered to facilitate a mixed-use developmentwith two (2) buildings, 22 and 23 storeys in height, having 616 dwelling units, 204 square metres of commercial floor area, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.2, a reduced parking requirement and reduced rearyard building setbacks. Page 347 of 350 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 — 2806399 Ontario Inc. — 1668 King Street East) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Numbers 173 and 174 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 High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 780R and Holding Provision 94H. 2. Schedule Numbers 173 and 174 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 780 thereto as follows: "780. Notwithstanding Sections 6.1.2, and 55.2.1 of this By-law within the lands zoned MU - 3 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Schedule Numbers 173 and 174 of Appendix `A' the following special regulations shall apply: a) The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 7.2. b) On-site Parking shall be provided as follows: i) Parking for multiple dwellings shall be provided at a rate of 0.64 spaces per unit. Page 348 of 350 ii) Visitor Parking shall be sharable with non-residential uses and be provided at a rate of 7% of the required parking. iii) Bicycle and electric vehicle parking are to be provided in accordance with By-law 2019-051; c) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 9.4 metres. d) Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited." 4. Appendix "F" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 94H thereto as follows: "94. Notwithstanding Section 55 of this Bylaw, within the lands zoned MU -3 and shown as being affected by this Subsection on Schedule Numbers 173 and 174 of Appendix "A": i) No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to their satisfaction. ii) No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Road Traffic, and Stationary Noise Study is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services, if necessary. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services advising that such noise study or studies has been approved and an agreement, if necessary, has been entered into with the City and/or Region, as necessary, providing for the implementation of any recommended noise mitigation measures." 5. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _, (1668 King Page 349 of 350 Street East) 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 350 of 350