Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2023-04-24Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Agenda Monday, April 24, 2023, 3:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Council Chambers - Hybrid City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation kitchener.ca. Please refer to the delegation section on the agenda below for registration in-person and electronic participation deadlines. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair: Councillor P. Singh Vice -Chair: Councillor D. Chapman Pages 1. MEETING PART ONE - 3:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. 2. Commencement 3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www.kitchener.ca/conflict to submit your written form. 4. Consent Items The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as under this section. 4.1 None. 5. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. All Delegations where possible are encouraged to register prior to the start of the meeting. For Delegates who are attending in-person, registration is permitted up to the start of the meeting. Delegates who are interested in attending virtually must register by 1:30 p.m. for Part 1 and 5:00 p.m. for Part 2 on April 24, 2023, in order to participate electronically. 5.1 Item 7.1. - Chris White and Matt Paziuk, Parcel Economics 6. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act (Advertised) This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act. If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City of Kitchener before the proposed applications are considered, the person or public body may not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal. 6.1 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA23/001/BB, 30 m 4 1385 Bleams Road, loane and Alina Solomes, DSD -2023-153 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) Please note: Any recommendation arising from the Committee regarding this matter will be considered at the special Council meeting scheduled for later this same date. 7. Discussion Items 7.1 Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable 60 m 42 Housing, DSD -2023-160 (A 10 -minute consultant presentation will be provided on this matter) 8. MEETING PART TWO - Approximately 7:00 p.m. 9. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act Confd (Advertised) 9.1 Official Plan Amendment OPA22/001/K/KA, 45 m 280 Zoning By-law Amendment, King -Charles Properties (Kitchener) Limited, 1001 King Street East, DSD -2023-151 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) 9.2 Official Plan Amendment OPA22/008/M/CD, 30 m 421 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA22/015/M/CD, 455-509 Mill Street, Polocorp Inc., DSD -2023- 145 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) Page 2 of 601 10. Information Items 10.1 None. 11. Adjournment Mariah Blake Committee Administrator Page 3 of 601 Staff Report l IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: April 24, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Brian Bateman, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7869 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 2 DATE OF REPORT: March 27, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-153 SUBJECT: 1385 Bleams Road Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA23/001/66 loane and Alina Solomes RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA23/001/M/BB requesting to amend Zoning By-law 85-1, for loane and Alina Solomes, be approved in the form shown in the Proposed `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1' as Attachment `A'. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding Zoning By-law Amendment Application for the property located at 1385 Bleams. It is Planning staffs recommendation that this application be approved with a Holding Provision. The proposed application represents an opportunity to intensify land that addresses a shortage of housing in our community, conserves and maintains a cultural heritage resource and implements the Rosenberg Community Plan land use designation. Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice to property owners within 240 metres of the subject site; o installation of a large billboard notice sign on the property; o a neighbourhood meeting held on March 9, 2023; o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public who responded to the circulation or saw the billboard sign; o notice advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners within 240 metres of the subject site, and those who responded to the preliminary circulation, and o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on March 31, 2023. This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Polocorp Inc. (Polocorp') has been retained by Alina and loane Solomes to file a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for the property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road in the *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 4 of 601 Rosenberg Community (see Figure 1). The proposed application is intended to facilitate the development of the western part of the subject property with 8 townhouse dwelling units. The proposal also contemplates a future consent application to sever the proposed townhouse development from the existing heritage dwelling on the subject property. Figure 1 — Aerial Photo of Subject Property A proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is being requested to implement zoning consistent with the land use designation. The proposed development consists of approximately 8 three-storey townhouse dwelling units, with associated parking and amenity areas. The proposed townhomes are approximately 193 sq m in size, including of two- or three-bedroom units. The townhomes will be accessed via a common driveway from Bleams Road, and each townhome will have a private driveway and garage. Private amenity areas with an area of approximately 24.3 sq. metres are proposed to be provided at the rear of each dwelling unit. Ultimately, the intent is for the shared driveway and visitor parking to be within a Common Element Condominium while the townhomes will be within Parcels of Tied Land. REPORT: The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of Fischer -Hallman Road and Bleams Road, on the south side of Bleams Road within the Rosenberg Neighbourhood. The Subject Property is municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road and legally described as: PLAN 1469 LOT 5, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The Subject Property is rectangular in shape with an area of approximately 3,223.88 sq m (0.32 hectares; 0.8 acres), a lot frontage of approximately 85.9 m (281.8 ft) on Bleams Road and a lot depth of approximately 37.5 m (123.0 ft). The subject property is currently occupied by a former schoolhouse, a woodshed and a garage which are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The schoolhouse is currently used as a residential dwelling. Surrounding land use consists of existing low rise residential/emerging low, Page 5 of 601 medium and high rise residential, commercial and open space. It is located within a 15 -minute walk of the Williamsburg Town Centre and major bus routes on Fischer -Hallman and Bleams Roads. The former schoolhouse on the subject property was originally constructed in 1864, with additions in 1874, 1922 and 1987. Front View of 1385 Bleams Road (Google) The board and batten clad woodshed to the south of the schoolhouse is of indeterminate age, likely of similar vintage as that of the schoolhouse. It is constructed with a gable roof and a gothic window on the east fagade. The heritage fence is comprised of round cedar posts with a crudely turned ball top and two horizontal pipe rails between the posts. The fence is in poor condition, with leaning posts, some missing tops and missing rails, and will be removed as a condition of the consent application to accommodate a Regional road widening. The existing garage was built after 1966 and is and not listed as a heritage feature. A detailed description of all heritage attributes of the subject property is provided in the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), prepared by CHC Limited and dated January 9, 2023. The HIA was presented to Heritage Committee for discussion on March 6, 2023. Planning Analysis: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment The subject lands are designated `Medium Density Residential One' in the Rosenberg Community Secondary Plan. This designation supports a range of medium density development with a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0 and building heights that range from 3 to 8 storeys. The current zoning is `Agricultural Zone (A-1)' under By-law 85-1. This zone does not permit the use of multiple dwellings. Therefore, to align with the land use designation, the applicant is requesting a Zoning By- law Amendment (ZBA) from `A-1' to `Residential Seven Zone (R-7)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 with a special regulation provision for increased interior side yard and front yard setbacks and a reduced rear yard setback required to implement the proposed townhouse proposal. Due to review timeline refunds required by Bill 109, a Holding Provision is required to ensure matters related to urban design, landscaping, cultural heritage and noise are addressed, prior to lifting of the Holding Provision. It is anticipated that a future consent application will separate the property into 2 parcels of land. The proposed development that was circulated with the application is shown below in (Figure 3). An updated plan is provided in Figure 4 that incorporates revisions made in response to staff's comments during the review process. These changes include enhanced setback between existing heritage home and proposed townhomes, improved rear yard setback, removal of visitor and barrier free spaces adjacent to Bleams Road and reduced parking aisle width. These design measures have been made to balance heritage, tree preservation along Bleams Road, and a desire for an improved rear yard amenity space. Page 6 of 601 Figure 3 — Proposed Conceptual Plan Page 7 of 601 Figure 4 — Revised Conceptual Site Plan (Polocorp) In consideration of the application, Planning staff assessed compatibility and impact associated with the proposed yard setbacks, reduced parking on surrounding lands and between the proposed townhouses and existing heritage designated dwelling. This will be discussed in the ensuing sections below. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Sections 1.1.3, 1.4.1 and 1.4.3 of the PPS promotes densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities. The PPS 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. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will contribute to an appropriate mix of housing types within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. The subject lands are within a developing neighbourhood with adequate servicing capacity, road network capacity, and other required infrastructure and therefore represents a cost-effective development pattern that minimized land consumption and servicing costs. Based on the above, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. Page 8 of 601 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. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) Municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and 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. Policy 2.2.1.4(a) This plan will support the achievement of Complete Communities that feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities. The proposed multiple dwelling residential development will contribute to a greater mix of housing types in the neighbourhood. This application implements the approved land use designation of the Rosenberg Community Plan. The existing neighbourhood is within walking distance of local stores, services, and public service facilities such as a major commercial plaza (Williamsburg Town Centre), Food Basics along Fischer -Hallman Road and Muti-purpose Trails (planned and existing) along Bleams Road and Fischer -Hallman Road. Planning staff is of the opinion that the development proposal conforms to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP), 2010: 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 the City to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications subject to implementing Holding Provisions. Planning staff are of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan: Urban Structure The Subject Property is located on lands identified as the 'Urban Corridor', which is one of the City's primary intensification areas. The planned function of Urban Corridors is to provide for, "...intensification opportunities that are transit supportive...". The proposed development presents a residential intensification opportunity on an underutilized parcel of land. The proposed development is limited to residential use but is well connected to the commercial and recreational destinations in the surrounding area. Further, the subject property is located within a 5 -minute walking distance of a bus stop. Land Use Designation The subject lands are designated `Medium Density Residential One' in the Rosenberg Community Secondary Plan. Housing Page 9 of 601 The City's primary objective with respect to housing in the Official Plan is 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. This low-rise multiple dwelling housing type is considered an attainable form of housing and provides an option that bridges the gap between high density residential towers and single detached dwellings. The proposed housing type is an important segment in Kitchener's housing continuum. Policy 4.C.1.8 Where special zoning regulations are proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulations will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that: a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. b) Where front yard setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in established neighbourhoods, the requested front yard setback should be similar to adjacent properties and supports and maintain the character of the streetscape and the neighbourhood. c) New additions and modifications to existing buildings are to be directed to the rear yard and are to be discouraged in the front yard and side yard abutting a street, except where it can be demonstrated that the addition and/or modification is compatible in scale, massing, design and character of adjacent properties and is in keeping with the character of the streetscape. d) New buildings, additions, modifications, and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. Policy 4.C.1.9. Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering compatibility. Policy 4.C.1.12. The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. Policy 4.C.1.22: The City will encourage the provision of a range of innovative housing types and tenures such as rental housing, freehold ownership and condominium ownership including common element condominium, phased condominium, and vacant land condominium, as a means of increasing housing choice and diversity. Staff is of the opinion that the development proposal is at a scale and features massing consistent with surrounding lands. Appropriate buffers have been established and proposed special regulations have been assessed to ensure impacts on the heritage dwelling and surrounding lands have been considered. Transportation The City's Official Plan contains policies to develop, support, and maintain a complete, convenient, accessible, and integrated transportation system that incorporates active transportation, public transit, and accommodates vehicular traffic. In regard to alternate modes of transportation, objectives of the Official Plan include promoting land use planning and development that is integrated and conducive to the efficient and effective operation of public transit and encourages increased ridership of the public transit system. The City shall promote and encourage walking and cycling as safe and convenient modes of transportation. Page 10 of 601 The proposed development aims to increase density on an existing site that is served well by public transit, with access to Grand River Transit Routes 12, 33, and Npress Routes 205. The proposed development concept includes provision of safe, secure indoor bicycle storage to encourage active transportation. Staff is of the opinion that the requested zoning by-law amendment conforms with the transportation policies of the City's Official Plan. Urban Design The City is committed to achieving a high standard of urban design, architecture and place -making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. Urban design is a vital component of city planning and goes beyond the visual and aesthetic character of individual buildings and considers the functionality and compatibility of development as a means of strengthening complete communities. Urban Design policies in the 2014 Official Plan support creating visually distinctive and identifiable places, structures and spaces that contribute to a strong sense of place and community pride, a distinct character and community focal points that promote and recognize excellence and innovation in architecture, urban design, sustainable building design and landscape design. The City will require high quality urban design in the review of all development applications through the implementation of the policies of the Official Plan and the City's Urban Design Manual. An Urban Design Brief has been submitted in support of the application and it provides design direction, assesses compatibility and outlines building materials and landscaping as required by policy. Given Bill 109 timelines, further refinement is necessary and thus, staff will be imposing a Holding Provision to have it approved by staff prior to releasing the Holding Provision. Cultural Heritage In accordance with the requirements of the Official Plan, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) were prepared in support of the proposed application. The Heritage Impact Assessment identified the existing schoolhouse with belfry, woodshed, and fence as designated heritage structures on the Subject Property. Pursuant to the policies contained in Section 12, these will be preserved, and no changes are proposed to these structures through this application. The HIA was discussed at Heritage Kitchener on March 7, 2023. An Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2) has been submitted as a part of the rezoning application. It found that a Stage 3 assessment would be required, which will be submitted and completed. It is therefore being recommended that, given Bill 109 timelines, both the HIA and AIA receive final approval by staff of the City and Region, prior to the lifting of a Holding Provision. One of the stipulations of the HIA is to ensure the proposed townhouses is setback further than the heritage home to protect easterly views from Bleams Road. Rosenberg Community Secondary Plan (RSP) The Rosenberg Community is a complete community where people are able to walk or cycle to school, shop, and potentially to work. Each neighbourhood within the Rosenberg Community will be designed based on the "five-minute walk principle" and will be connected to the surrounding area The Subject Property is designated 'Medium Density Residential One' in the RSP (Map 22 e- Land Use Plan, Refer to Figure 14) and identified as a 'Corridor' (Map 22 a: Community Structure Plan). The Subject Property is identified as a 'Cultural Heritage Resource' (Map 22 b: Cultural Heritage Resources), comprising of former Williamsburg School House built in the Georgian Architecture Style. Page 11 of 601 Each neighbourhood within the Rosenberg Community will be planned, designed, and zoned to achieve a variety of housing types, styles and lot widths. The Medium Density Residential 1 land use designation will permit a range of medium density housing types including townhouse and multiple dwellings. The net density range will generally be 26-100 units per hectare and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 1.0. Building heights will generally range between 3-8 storeys and will be regulated through the Zoning By-law. The objectives of cultural heritage policies are to conserve cultural heritage resources and to ensure that all development is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources. To that end, and as mentioned previously, an HIA and AIA have been submitted Policy Conclusion Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good planning. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are currently zoned in Zoning By-law 85-1. The necessary changes as part of this Zoning By-law Amendment are described below. Zoning By-law 85-1: The 'Agricultural (A-1)' zone does not permit the development of the subject property for medium density residential development. As such, an amendment to the Zoning By-law is required to facilitate the proposal. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application seeks to rezone the subject property from 'Agricultural Zone (A-1)' to `Residential Seven Zone (R-7) with Special Use Provision 789R', in Zoning By-law 85-1. 789 R is required to: • Permit an interior (western) side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas 2.5 metres is required (Section 41.2.6); • Permit an overall parking rate of 1 space per unit for the proposed development, while 1.5 spaces per unit is required for multiple residential dwellings, together with visitor and barrier free parking spaces (Sections 6.1.2; 6.1.2(b)(vi); 6.7); • Permit a landscape buffer of 2.4 metres along the street line whereas 3 metres is required (Section 6.1.1.1(a)(iv)); • Permit a drive aisle encroachment of 0.6 metres within the 3 metre buffer from the street line, whereas drive aisles are not permitted within this buffer (Section 6.1.1.1(a)(iv)); and, • • Acknowledgement of the location, height, and rear yard setback of the existing heritage house and shed (Section 5.5) Interior Side Yard Setback The proposed townhouses building will be deficient in the western side yard setback, as the R-7 zone requires a minimum setback of 2.5 metres for buildings between 9 metres and 10.5 metres in height, while the proposed development contemplates a setback of 1.2 metres. The lands to the west and south of the subject property form part of Plan of Subdivision 30T-09201. This Plan of Subdivision identifies the adjacent lands as being a stormwater management (SWM) facility. As such, the western lot line will abut a SWM facility, and no negative impacts are anticipated due to the reduced western side yard. Page 12 of 601 Parking One parking space per dwelling unit can be supported by staff for two primary reasons. The subject property is within close walking distance to public transit as discussed in the Transportation section of this report and secondly, each unit will have a garage and driveway that can easily accommodate two vehicles. The internal road can also accommodate short-term parking without impacting the Regional right-of-way on Bleams Road, if needed. Landscape Buffer The proposed development contemplates a landscape buffer of 2.4 metres along Bleams Road, whereas 3 metres is required by the Zoning By-law. The deficiency in the landscape buffer is a result of the conveyance of a 2 -metre -wide road widening along Bleams Road to the Region. The landscape buffer has been reduced to facilitate the provision of an internal drive aisle as only one (1) access is permitted from the abutting Regional Road for the revised driveway and drive aisle location allow for the preservation of additional trees in the front yard and rear yards, where possible. Based on the above, a minor reduction of 0.6 metres in the landscape buffer is appropriate as it enables achievement of various other development objectives on the subject property, while providing a reasonable buffer along Bleams Road. Further, Section 6.1.1.1.(a)(iv) does not permit aisles giving direct access to abutting parking spaces within the first 3 metres from the street line. The proposed internal road has a setback of 2.4 metres from the street line, instead of the required 3 metres. As previously noted, this deficiency results from road widening requirement along Bleams Road. Further, only one (1) access is permitted on a Regional Road, which necessitates the provision of an internal road to service the proposed development. As such, this encroachment is minor and reasonable without any significant impacts. Setback from Existing Home to Development Proposal Staff worked with the applicant to ensure there is an appropriate setback established between the existing home and the new development to ensure there is adequate separation for viewshed purposes, vegetation plantings and access to the rear yard. Holding Provisions Holding provisions enable lands to be zoned for specific uses but prevents development and redevelopment from occurring until the City is satisfied that certain conditions have been met. Holding provisions are operationalized in the Zoning By-law using a holding symbol "H", in conjunction with a specific land use or land use designation category. The removal of the holding symbol occurs after fulfillment of the specific requirements as set out in the Official Plan (section 17.E.13). The City will utilize holding provisions to achieve orderly development and ensure that policies established in this Plan have been met prior to development proceeding. The policies in 17.E.13. Section allow for the implementation of holding provisions in the City's Zoning By-law on a comprehensive or site-specific basis. Bill 109 timelines have necessitated the use of a Holding Provision to ensure certain requirements are satisfied prior to development occurring on the subject lands. Holding Provision 101 H has been included to require final approval of the HIA, an Urban Design Brief, a Tree Management Plan, a Servicing Report, as Archaeological Assessment, and Environmental Noise Study. These are outlined in the attached by-law and will remain in place until such time each item has been addressed satisfactorily and an application has been made to lift the Holding provision. Page 13 of 601 p������ J � 1 person provided comments �.°1 Neighbourhood Meeting held on March 9, 2023 143 households circulated and notified Department and Agency Comments: Preliminary circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment occurred in February 2023 to applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency. Copies of the comments are found in Attachment "C" of this report. The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Zoning By-law Amendments: • Concept Plan, prepared by Polocorp Inc., and dated 11 November 2023 • Planning Justification Report, prepared by Polocorp Inc., and dated 26 January 2023 • Existing Conditions Plan, prepared by MTE Consultants Inc.; and dated 5 May 2022 • Preliminary Grading Plan, prepared by MTE Consultants Inc; and dated 16 September 2022 • Archeological Assessment (Stage 1 & 2), prepared by Detritus Consulting Ltd., and dated 27 September 2022 • Archeological Assessment (Stage 3), prepared by Detritus Consulting Ltd., and dated 12 December 2022 • Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Ltd., and dated January 9, 2023 • Urban Design Brief, prepared by Polocorp Inc., and dated 26 January 2023 • Tree Management Plan, prepared by Hill Design Studio Inc.; and dated 21 October 2022 • Arborist Report, prepared by Hill Design Studio Inc., and dated 24 January 2023 • Building Elevations, prepared by Orchard Design Studio Inc.; and dated 23 January 2023 • 3-D Massing model, prepared by Polocorp Inc.; and dated 25 January 2023 • Sustainability Statement, prepared by Polocorp Inc., and dated 26 January 2023 • Correspondence on Notice of Source Water Protection Plan Community Input and Staff Response: Staff received written responses from one (1) resident with respect to the proposed development. This can be found in Attachment 'D'. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. What We Heard Staff Comment Are Turning lanes proposed at Bleams Road is governed by the Regional Municipality of Helena Feasby/Bleams Rd.? Waterloo. As such, any road improvement/upgrade are subject to the Region's discretion. However, given the Page 14 of 601 Planning Conclusions: In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represents good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved. The proposed application represents an opportunity to provide `missing middle' housing that addresses a need in our community. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this recommendation. Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 introduced a requirement for a municipality to refund planning application fees if a decision is not made within a prescribed timeframe. Decisions on Zoning By-law Amendments are required within 90 days to retain planning application fees, effective January 1, 2023. Planning Staff are recommending that a Special Council meeting be held on April 24, 2023 following the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Meeting to make a decision on this application. If the decision is made by Council on May 8, 2023 at the next regularly scheduled Kitchener Council Meeting, the Planning Division must issue an application fee refund of $12,800.00, being 50% of the $25,600 Major Zoning By-law Amendment Application fee. The Planning Division does not have a funding source or budget for refunding planning application fees. 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 billboard notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website. A postcard was mailed to all property owners and residents within 240 metres regarding this application. Following the initial Page 15 of 601 emerging subdivision development proposed along Bleams Road and adjacent to the subject development, the Region is proposing road improvements in the form of roundabouts and multi -use trails along both sides of Bleams Road. For more information on what the Region is proposing, please refer to: Kitchener: Bleams Road Road Improvements I EnaaaeWR. Concerned residents from this There is nothing preventing residents of this proposal to development will cut across utilize Helena Feasby Street depending on where they Bleams Road to Helena Feasby wish to travel. It may be preferrable to turn right and Street from Proposed Development enter the roundabout and circle back to Helena Feasby Street. What will happen to the Existing The existing schoolhouse building will remain as a single Dwelling? detached dwelling. Vegetation Proposed along Bleams To be determined at the detailed design stage. A 2.4 metre wide landscape buffer is proposed. Timeline for Development The applicant would like to construct the dwelling units as soon as possible. Planning Conclusions: In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represents good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved. The proposed application represents an opportunity to provide `missing middle' housing that addresses a need in our community. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this recommendation. Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 introduced a requirement for a municipality to refund planning application fees if a decision is not made within a prescribed timeframe. Decisions on Zoning By-law Amendments are required within 90 days to retain planning application fees, effective January 1, 2023. Planning Staff are recommending that a Special Council meeting be held on April 24, 2023 following the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Meeting to make a decision on this application. If the decision is made by Council on May 8, 2023 at the next regularly scheduled Kitchener Council Meeting, the Planning Division must issue an application fee refund of $12,800.00, being 50% of the $25,600 Major Zoning By-law Amendment Application fee. The Planning Division does not have a funding source or budget for refunding planning application fees. 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 billboard notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website. A postcard was mailed to all property owners and residents within 240 metres regarding this application. Following the initial Page 15 of 601 circulation referenced below, an additional courtesy notice of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject lands and Notice of the Public Meeting was posted in the Waterloo Region Record on March 31, 2023 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Attachment `B'). CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was originally circulated to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject lands on February 7, 2023. In response to this circulation, staff received one written response, which is included in Attachment `D'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on March 9, 2023 and attended by approximately 3 members of the public and no questions were asked. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Zoning By-law 85-1 • Official Plan, 2014 • Regional Official Plan, 2010 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Planning Act, 1990 • A Place to Grow Growth Plan, 2020 REVIEWED BY: Malone -Wright, Tina — Interim Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Zoning By-law and Map No Attachment B — Newspaper Notice Attachment C — Department & Agency Comments Attachment D — Resident Comments Page 16 of 601 PROPOSED BY — LAW 2023 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 —1385 Bleams Road) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Number 93 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Agricultural Zone (A-1) with Special Regulation Provision 1 R to Residential Seven Zone (R-7) with Special Regulation Provision 789R and Holding Provision 101 H. 2. Schedule Number 93 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Appendix "D" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 789 thereto as follows: "789. Notwithstanding Sections 5.21B, 5.5, 6.0, and 41.2 of this By-law, within the lands zoned Residential Seven Zone (R-7), shown as being affected by this subsection on Schedule Number 93 of Appendix "A', the following special regulations shall apply: a. the minimum rear yard setback shall be 6.0 metres; b. the minimum interior side yard setback shall be 1.2 metres and the minimum setback from the existing heritage building addressed as 1385 Bleams Road shall be 3.7 metres; Page 17 of 601 c. geothermal energy systems are prohibited; d. a site plan approval and development agreement are not required for a common element condominium; e. for a Common Element Condominium and associated Parcels of Tied Lands, zoning regulations shall apply to the lot as a whole; f. the location of any building existing on the date of the passing of this by-law, shall be deemed to comply with the following regulations; i. Front yard; ii. Rear yard; and iii. Building height. g. the minimum width of a landscape strip required adjacent to a street line shall be 2.4 metres; h. the minimum drive aisle setback from front lot line shall be 2.4 metres; and i. the minimum off-street parking required for a multiple dwelling shall be 1 space per dwelling unit." 4. Appendix "F" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 101 H thereto as follows: "101. Notwithstanding Section 41 of this By-law, within lands zoned R-7 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Schedule Number 93 of Appendix "A", the following shall apply: a. No new residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Road Traffic and Stationary Noise Study, or agreement to include any necessary warning clauses, 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 any necessary noise mitigation measures have been approved and agreed upon with the City/Region. b. No new residential use shall be permitted until such time as an Archaeological Assessment has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture Page 18 of 601 and Sport. This holding provision shall not be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a confirmation letter from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. c. No new residential use shall be permitted until such time as the provision of servicing from municipal infrastructure is confirmed by a professional Engineer, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo and City's Director of Engineering. This holding provision shall not be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Region of Waterloo confirming acceptance. d. No new residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Heritage Protection Plan addressing the protection of the existing heritage house through the construction of the adjacent lands is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener. This holding provision shall not be removed until the City's Director of Planning has confirmed acceptance of the required assessments. e. No new residential use shall be permitted until such time as the Urban Design Brief, prepared January 30, 2023, is updated to reflect the proposed plan to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener. This holding provision shall not be removed until the City's Director of Planning has confirmed acceptance. f. No new residential use shall be permitted until such time as an updated Tree Management Plan is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener. This holding provision shall not be removed until the City's Director of Planning has confirmed acceptance." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , 2023. Mayor Clerk Page 19 of 601 V/ W W re O w z O O z W pN E O J� W Z LU p LL z w Z> O NCn O T- N N C)•Y ZLLJ J W D H U) (n Q U U j X0- LU w W LZ z0 Q p W Q x Z W Z U) z W W> 2 X N z o z w OLU zw�� ~ W WZ�N zW O� C7 N U U r Z Z z p x Z O of J m cY W~ W N NN N LL (n Z = W W d z D LU W z Uof < Q Q Q J d TJI-cnWZ a0- zzzc�m< D U W W Z U) W W W = Z W U z>> J z Q�Q N¢ d QEEcnUz0 W m W Ntocncn W Z O (D W 7 O J 2 d Q W W W Z N J Q d' m () z N0- 0- 0 2 R' Q' W' J ( I Z W' N M =p O 7 N M V T 61 } W =p m m Q m m U N N d a mC� a� of m? Z N O N r COM m'um W m m 00 a m a J m LL `O N N s° g7nag os 1 h � ZZ O O 1 CV CL r Z > > —0-0 N in as a� Q LO WZOZo Z N Z W - -O 0HZHO J Q w?; NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING � for a development in your neighbourhood 1385 Bleams Road I TCT 11,"NER Have Your Voice Heard! Concept Drawing Date: April 24, 2023 Location: Council harnrbers,. Kitchener CIty Hall 200 lying Street West. qrVirtu.uall Zoiom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, meeting details, start time of this item 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/ Plan n i ngAppl ications or contact: 11esIii en'tiia1 8 To�An.�I use 1: e t e i.ili"i o i.i of Brian Bateman, Senior Planner i ngs ........... lei iiitage 519 741.2200 x 7869 lon�ie brian.bateman@kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener will consider an application to amend Zoning By-law 85-1 to facilitate a proposal to create a new lot for the development of 8 townhomes while retaininga lot for the existing heritage home. Site-specific provisions for front, rear& side yard setbacks and parking will also be required for the existing heritage home and to facilitate the proposal. Page 21 of 601 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law Amendment Comment Form Project Address: 1385 Bleams Road File Number: ZBA23/001/13/1313 Date of Site Plan Review Committee Meeting: No meeting, email circulation Comments Of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Steve Ryder Email: steven.ryder@kitchener.ca Phone: (519) 7412200 x 7152 Date of Comments: March 17, 2023 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Recommendation of Commenting Division: X❑ Transportation Services has no objections to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the subject site for the purpose of construction an 8 -unit cluster townhouse block. Please see the following comments: • The proposed ZBA includes a proposal to reduce the required visitor parking spaces from three (3) to zero (0). Transportation Services has reviewed the updated concept after a short meeting with the applicant team on Thursday, March 16 and can support the proposal. Each unit includes one (1) required parking space within the internal garage, as well as one (1) surplus space in the driveway. Additionally, the proposed "internal roadway" will likely be able to accommodate several vehicles without impacting the Regional right-of-way. There is also short-term, on -street parking on Helena Feasby St that can accommodate the 8 -unit proposal, if needed. • As the proposed site does not require site plan approval under the new parameters of Bill 23, Transportation Services staff offer the following advisory comments: o Ensure a minimum width of 6.1m for the internal roadway that services the units; o Ensure no obstructions with the site access Driveway Visibility Triangles (DVTs); o Ensure the proposed bike racks are located closer to the units than the roadway for safety and convenience; A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 22 of 601 o If Community Mailbox is required on-site, ensure it is easily accessible and is not located within the DVTs. 2. Conditions of Site Plan Approval in Principle: • N/A 3. Conditions of the S. 41 Development Agreement: ❑ Traffic Control Signs (2e) ❑ Special Condition(s): 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: o Urban Design Manual: o Barrier -free space standards: o https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN UD 5.0 Access ibilitv Standards For The Built Environment.adf o Access to Roads: o https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN UD 2.0 Access To Roads.pdf 5. Anticipated Fees: o N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 23 of 601 Date: February 27, 2023 To: Brian Bateman From: Jason BrUle cc: Carlos Reyes Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application loan Solomes 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener ZBA23/001/B/BB l p``w"o rf,-v"?R The below comments have been prepared through the review of the supplied Existing Conditions Plan and Preliminary Grading Plan prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. revised May 05, 2022, and October 28, 2022 respectively in support of the above noted application. General Comments: 1. Engineering supports the zoning by-law amendment with some advisory comments provided below. Sanitary: 2. Flows for this site were already considered during the Rosenberg Secondary planning phase. Water (Angela Mick, KU): 3. No concerns for water flows and pressures. The applicant is reminded that they need to tap their service off a local watermain and not a Regional main. Stormwater Management: 4. Stormwater management for this site is accounted for in SWM Facility #1 on the Williamsburg Green subdivision directly adjacent to the west and south. Jason Brule, C.E.T. Engineering Technologist Page 24 of 601 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 1385 Bleams Road Application Type: ZBA Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) — City of Kitchener Commenter's name: Kieran Luckhai Email: Kieran.Luckhai@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7078 Written Comments Due: March 6, 2023 Date of comments: February 17, 2023 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application: • Sustainability Statement -1385 Bleams Road, prepared by Polocorp Inc., dated January 26, 2023 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support a Zoning By-law Amendment for the proposed development of 8 three-storey townhouse dwelling units, regarding sustainability and energy conservation and provide the following: • Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is advanced, going forward all developments will need to include robust energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo) strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target. • As indicated in the pre -submission meeting the development is within the Rosenburg Secondary Plan. Policies in the Rosenberg Secondary Plan encourage incorporation of progressive sustainability measures, including those in standards such as LEED or other comparable standards. • It is recommended that more progressive measures that go beyond the OBC be explored to further energy conservation, generation and operation, and benefit future residents/tenants. • Upon review of the supporting documentation there are several positive sustainability measures which have been considered and proposed for the development including: o The compact and efficient design of an underutilized lands o The use of low flow fixtures and low water consuming appliances o Lighting fixtures that are at or below ASHRAE 90.1-2019 power requirements o Sub -metering of individual units o The exploration of on-site waste management facilities, including recycling and composting 1 1II�!11 g,e Page 25 of 601 An updated Sustainabilitv Statement incorooratine a more Droeressive enerev conservation and efficient design is required to support the Zoning Bylaw Amendment. • Potential items for consideration are: o The use of alternative water supply and demand management systems or readiness to add these systems in the future o Implementation of low water use landscaping alternatives o White/light coloured roofing material to take advantage of passive solar energy gain o Engineering the building to add solar PVs if required in the future o Additional landscaping features to enhance the urban forest o Using low or no VOC paints and finishes to minimize air pollutants in interior materials o Sustainable sourcing of construction and building materials • A Sustainability Statement (as per the City's Terms of Reference) will be required as part of a complete Site Plan Application which can further explore and/or confirm additional sustainability measures that are best suited to the development. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy consumption. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the potential for implementing district energy exists. • Rosenberg Secondary Plan Policy 2.6.2.1. The City will promote development that strives to be sustainable by encouraging, supporting and, where appropriate, requiring: i. Compact development and efficient built form; ii. Transit supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of active modes of transportation such as cycling and walking; iii. Environmentally responsible design and construction practices; iv. The integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; and, v. The reduction of resource consumption associated with development. • Rosenberg Secondary Plan Policy 2.6.2.2. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and appropriate, Alternative Energy Systems, Renewable Energy Systems and district energy to accommodate current and projected needs of energy consumption. • Rosenberg Secondary Plan Policy 2.6.2.3. The City will use plans and strategies to help guide development and redevelopment to meet sustainable development goals, such as those contained within the Kitchener Growth Management Strategy and related growth management plans, the Transportation Master Plan, and the Urban Design Manual. 2 1II�!11 g,e Page 26 of 601 • Rosenberg Secondary Plan Policy 2.6.2.4. The City will develop and implement sustainable development design standards for all development, redevelopment, building renovation and infrastructure, to be integrated into the Urban Design Manual. • Rosenberg Secondary Plan Policy 2.6.2.5. The City will encourage at the development application stage, the reduction of energy and residential combustion emissions through a range of approaches including the development of R-2000 homes and similar commercial construction standards such as LEED or other similar published standards, the incorporation of Energy Star appliances, the physical layout of the plan having regard to energy conservation, and buildings powered by renewable energy sources, both passive and active. This may include incentives offered through the City's Energy and Water Efficiency for Land and Buildings Community Improvement Plan. • Rosenberg Secondary Plan Policy 2.6.2.6. On a site specific basis, certain techniques such as the use of roof top gardens and the re -use of grey water will be encouraged provided that groundwater infiltration targets are not compromised. 4. Advice: ➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability- initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise). ➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under 'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement 3 1II�!11 E,e Page 27 of 601 From: Chris Foster -Pengelly <cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 3:52 PM To: Brian Bateman Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 1385 Bleams Road (ZBA) The subject property is not regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. As such, we will not e providing comments. Chris IFosteir Ill::3eingelllly, IIS„ c„ Assistant Supervisor � k�mmaara�I:. lanirino ("irand IRiiveir (""oinseirvan:iioiru Authority 400 Clyde Road, PO Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2319 Toll-free: 1-866-900-4722 Email: coo,2,rpe.12.q I[II, arandiriiveir..ca r ..._q!r..!d.Ir.Ily.eJr.:..: a. Iakin„Irk.g. jA..rii,lt,lh......u'...._glr].....s ogi.2.II......ir7ne....Iia.. From: Planning <pllanningrandriver.ca> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:15 AM To: Chris Foster -Pengelly <cfoste11prngellll_y_grrnriveir.a p> Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 1385 Bleams Road (ZBA) From: Christine Kompter < IhirVstVin IICr inn ir( kirt bprn_ .ir..cp> Sent: February 7, 2023 4:17 PM To: _DL_#_DSD—Planning <[)5_D-Planinii_rngll)i_yiisVon. �Ikiitclhener:_ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <ciircullatVoins@vnrs ....cpgjm>; Carlos Reyes <Carllos.Ifke ._es.. lkirt lheine1. >; Darren Kropf _ ........................._y :. <Dairirein.Kir0 Iki1 .1h_ern ir.cp>; Dave Seller <Dave:SelllerCA.i ij.tc_ ineir,ca>; David Paetz ................................................... ........ _ .......... <Daviid.Paetz !kftclhener..ca>; Ellen Straus <1�:..IlIen...St.ra.us.@..!�itclhen.er.,ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig ........................................................... ..._................................................................ ..................... Cameron <giro~.iig.cairneiroin@einovaiovnreir.coirn>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <sliuin.nnrrn(ceinova�power Feds <vpe..f.:s.p>; Planning <pnVanning _ .,iraindiriveir.ca>; Greg Reitzel < r g.ietd ee>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <IIrg anning hy .................................... _o cn_cain_e. um>; Jim Edmondson <J_io.o-u_,_Edum.p_ d.so.n_ V<itclie_rie.r.. ,>; Justin Readman <Jnas. o.in_,IR a rrn _rr..@_kitclh_e_ er.._ca>: Katherine Hughes <IKa.KIh e rJ.in2.:H_ughes@Ikitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <VVii.V<e. Se.ol_grn.&@Etcheineir.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <IE; u�t. .... olawanddeveVo ment o com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.PVanraing( kitchener,ca>; Region - Planning <.219.0nirn. Vications ire ionofwaterVoo.ca>; ........................................................... Property Data Administrator (SM)<U¢InlftnurnurrVcu.e�nero>; Robert Morgan <Robert.MorrrO<it0lpr.c>; Steven Ryder <teven.Ryrki. ln_ernpr.o p>; Sylvie Eastman <SyV�rieolF stman..( _Or.'u.tc_heneir._ca>; WCDSB - Planning <1p._q!n_�n.irng vuc s ocp>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (ell line barns@ rdsb p .) <eVa_prop.....I u�_Irins.@.. Ira slb.p .>; WRDSB - Planning <p.I_2.inin_iiing.@ Ir s_I ..c > Page 28 of 601 Cc: Brian Bateman <IE1ri_in t minikiiclhinir:> Subject: Circulation for Comment - 1385 Bleams Road (ZBA) Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folder 23-101841 (City staff) andar.eEJ0. (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to Brian Bateman, Senior Planner br'ian.bateman kitchener ca; 519-741-2200 x7869). ..................................................................................................................... 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.l<ompter@kitchener.ca Page 29 of 601 City of Kitchener Heritage — OPA/ZBA Comment Form Project Address: 1385 Bleams Road File Number: ZBA23/001/13/1313 Comments Of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Deeksha Choudhry Email: deeksha.choudhry@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Date of Comments: March 3, 2023 Heritage Planning staff has reviewed the following material for the proposed development on the lands municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road to provide the comments outlined below: • Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated January 9, 2023; • Archaeological Assessment Stage 1 & 2 dated September 27, 2022; • Archaeological Assessment Stage 3 dated December 2022; • Submission Cover Letter dated January 26, 2023; • Proposed Building Elevations; • Proposed Floor Plans; and • Tree Management Plan 1. Site Specific Comments: The subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Designating By-law 1987-309 protects the existing building, also known as the 'Williamsburg School', the belfry, the fence and the wood shed. The applicant is proposing to sever a portion of the land to building 8 townhomes towards the rear side of the property. No alterations to the existing residence or the wood shed have been proposed. 2. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment for 1385 Bleams Road A draft HIA has been submitted to the City in support of this application dated January 9, 2023. The draft HIA concludes that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the existing designated heritage resources. Furthermore, the HIA recommends that a 'Heritage Protection Plan' be A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 30 of 601 prepared which would include protective measures for the schoolhouse, post, and rail fence adjacent to the development site. The draft HIA has not yet been approved by the Director of Planning. The draft HIA is scheduled to go to the Heritage Kitchener Committee at its March 7, 2023, meeting. Comments received from that meeting will be provided under separate document, along with the HIA review comments. 3. Heritage Planning Comments Overall, the proposed development seems sympathetic with the existing character of schoolhouse. However, staff have concerns regarding the setback from the existing building to the new townhomes. Staff are of the opinion that a 2.4 m setback from the existing building might not be sufficient, specially during construction, Staff encourage the applicant to explore the following: - Determine whether the proposed development can be setback even further to ensure a sufficient 'buffer space' between the existing heritage resource and new development Explore a different layout of the proposed development so that the new townhomes are not competing with the existing heritage resource and are sufficiently set back. There might an opportunity to move the orientation of the townhomes, so that the existing building set back onto a bigger amenity area, providing sufficient 'screening' from the proposed development. Staff would like to work with the applicants in addressing concerns related to the setback of the proposed development. In order to facilitate the proposed development, due to the recent changes that have been introduced by Bill 23, a site plan is no required. Therefore, a holding provision needs to be implemented on the site, which can only be lifted once the following have been completed: - The Heritage Impact Assessment is approved by the Director of Planning; - A Conservation Plan is submitted and approved by the Director of Planning; A heritage permit will also be needed to facilitate the development since the lands involve a designated Part IV heritage resource. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 31 of 601 Brian Bateman, MCIP. RPP Senior Planner DSD — Planning Division City of Kitchener 200 King Street W. Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Bateman: Post Circulation Comments ZBA 23/001/B/BB loan Solomes 1385 Bleams Road CITY OF KITCHENER PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4,13 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.reedionofwaterloo.ca Shilling Yip (226) 753-1064 (C) Files: C14-60/2/23001 March 28, 2023 Region staff has reviewed the above -noted application and provides the following comments for your consideration at this time. The applicant is proposing is proposing to re -zone the property from A-1 agricultural one in By-law 85-1 to Medium Density Residential (RES -6) with site specific regulations and uses to correspond with the Medium Rise Residential One land use designation of the Rosenberg Secondary Plan. The intent of the ZBA is to facilitate a consent to create a new block of land for the development of 8 townhomes, while retaining a lot for the existing heritage dwelling on the property. Staff understands the dwelling, shed and fence structure along the Bleams Road frontage are designated architectural and historical value under the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff also understands this development will not be subject to site plan, as only 8 units are being proposed. The lands are designated Urban Area "Designated Greenfield Areas" on Map 3a in the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Document Number: 4333938 Version: 1 Page 32 of 601 -2 - Water Services A Functional Servicing Report is required. This may be secured through a holding provision in the proposed zoning by-law amendment. The applicant should be made aware that no connection to regional water mains will be permitted in accordance with Section B.2.1.4.1 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2021. Hydrogeology & Water Programs (Source Water Protection) The lands are designated Wellhead Protection Sensitivity 8 on Map 6a of the Regional Official Plan. The purpose of the mapping and corresponding policies in the ROP is to protect the longterm municipal groundwater supplies. Geothermal wells are permitted subject to further study in accordance with ROP Policy 8.A.4. Alternatively, geothermal wells should be prohibited as a permitted use in the zoning by-law amendment. As no additional technical study has been provided to support the use of geothermal systems, Hydrogeology & Water Programs (HWP) staff has requested that a prohibition on geothermal wells as defined in Chapter 8 of the Regional Official Plan, including vertical open and closed loop geothermal energy systems, be written in the proposed zoning by-law amendment for the subject lands. A Salt Management Plan is required. This may be secured through a holding provision in the proposed zoning by-law amendment. As part of the plan, HWP would encourage the proponent to incorporate design considerations with respect to salt management, including: • Ensure that cold weather stormwater flows are considered in the site design. Consideration should be given to minimize the transport of meltwater across the parking lots or driveway. This also has the potential to decrease the formation of ice and thereby the need for de-icing. • Directing downspouts towards pervious (i.e. grassy) surfaces to prevent runoff from freezing on parking lots and walkways. • Locating snow storage areas on impervious (i.e. paved) surfaces in close proximity to catch basins. • Using winter maintenance contractors that are Smart About SaItTM certified. • Using alternative de-icers (e.g. pickled sand) in favour of road salt. The proponent is eligible for certification under the Smart About SaItTM program for this property. Completion of the Salt Management Plan is one part of the program. To learn more about the program and to find accredited contractors please refer to: http://www.smartaboutsait.com/. Benefits of designation under the program include cost savings through more efficient use of salt, safe winter conditions by preventing the formation of ice, and potential reductions in insurance premiums. Document Number: 4333938 Version: 1 Page 33 of 601 -3 - Corridor Planning Conditions of Approval for the Zone Change Application Road Traffic Noise Study At this location the proposed development may encounter environmental noise sources from Bleams Road. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, the applicant must prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. This may be secured through a holding provision in the proposed zoning by-law amendment. The consultant who prepares the Environmental Noise Study must be listed on the Region of Waterloo's Approved List of Noise Consultants. The noise consultant is responsible for obtaining current information, applying professional expertise in preforming calculations, making detailed and justified recommendations, submitting the Consultant Noise Declaration and Owner/Authorized Agent Statement. The consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must contact Region of Waterloo staff for transportation data, including traffic forecasts and truck percentages, for the purpose of preparing the Environmental Noise Study. Region of Waterloo staff will provide this data within three weeks of receiving the request from the noise consultant. Please note that there is a $500 fee for the preparation of the traffic forecasts and review of the Environmental Noise Study. The noise consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must submit the transportation data request online via (httl)s://rmow.r)ermitcentral.ca/Permit/GroupAI)ply?groul)ld=3). Resubmission of any Transportation Noise Study may be subject to a $250 resubmission fee. In the event that a stationary noise source, and/or a vibration source are/is identified as potential concerns, the applicant will be required to pay for a third party review by an external Noise Consultant retained by the Region. The fee for this third party review is $4000 + HST. Please submit payment for the third party review along with the submitted noise study. Additional fees may apply depending on scope of review required. Payment can be made either by cheque payable to the Region of Waterloo, or by contacting Ms. Peggy Walter (PWalter(a-)regionofwaterloo.ca) via other methods. Stormwater Management & Site Grading A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report is required for review and approval by the Region. This may be secured through a holding provision in the proposed zoning by-law amendment. Detailed comments related to site specific grading and servicing details will be provided. Where possible, please coordinate underground service connections from the local municipal road rather than the Regional Road. Document Number: 4333938 Version: 1 Page 34 of 601 -4 - Conditions of Approval for the future Consent Application Regional Road Dedication At this location, Bleams Road has a designated road width of 30.48m (100ft) in Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and an approximate 2.Om road widening will be required. The exact amount of road widening dedication is to be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) in consultation with the Region's Transportation Planner. Please show the correct road widening and daylight triangle dedications on all plans going forward. The landowner will be responsible for re -locating the fence onto lands outside of the subject widening, prior to conveyance of lands to the Region. The widening is applicable over the entire Bleams Road frontage (on both the townhouse and heritage lots). The Region's Bleams Road road project is expected to commence about this time next year. Ideally, staff would like to have the widening dedication prior to this date in order to avoid having to defer work in this area. Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation The subject property currently obtains vehicular access directly to Bleams Road via two full movement access locations. Region staff notes that the proposed development would be granted a single vehicular access to Bleams Road, and must be located directly across from the existing Helena Feasby Street right of way. The applicant is advised to work with staff to develop a site design with a vehicular access that is approved by the Region. The Regional Road Access Permit application can be found on the Region of Waterloo website https://forms.regionofwaterloo.ca/ePay/PDLS-Online-Payment- Forms/Commercial-Access-Permit-Application The associated application fee is $230. Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Cultural heritage staff has reviewed the Heritage Impact Assessment for 1385 Bleams Road (Jan 9/23) and note that the Williamsburg Public School (1864/1874 structure) is being conserved intact. The Region supports the OHA designation of the structure, as well as the development of a Heritage Protection Plan as recommended in the HIA. Staff has also reviewed the Stage 1,2 and 3 Archaeological Assessments reports. Staff understands the Stages 1 & 2 Assessment has been submitted to the Ministry for expedited review, and that acknowledgement is still pending. The Stage 3 assessment has been completed and does not recommend further assessment. It is to be submitted to the Ministry once the Stage 1 & 2 is acknowledged. As you know the Region's practice is to request complete Archaeological Assessments with Ministry Acknowledgement as part of the submission of a complete application. In this case, the application was accepted as complete without identifying this requirement and the Document Number: 4333938 Version: 1 Page 35 of 601 -5 - application is now subject to Bill 109 timeframes. It is the Region's preference that the complete Archaeological Assessment and Ministry Acknowledgement be received prior to Council consideration of the application. However, Region staff recognizes this application is subject to Bill 109 timeframes and should the City impose a holding provision the Region requests that it not be lifted until a complete Archaeological Assessment and Ministry Acknowledgment be received to the satisfaction of the Region. Housing No comments. Regional Development Charges Any future development on the subject lands will be subject to provisions of Regional Development Charges By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Other Staff acknowledges the Region's required review fee for the ZBA application was received February 8, 2023. In summary, the proposed zoning by-law amendment must include the following: 1) a prohibition on geothermal wells; and 2) a holding provision to address (to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo), • Completion of a Road Traffic Noise Study • Completion of a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report • Completion of a Salt Management Plan, and • Submission of all archaeological assessment reports to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport; with receipt of Ministry acknowledgement of same. Region staff has no objection to proceeding with a City staff recommendation to Kitchener Council subject to the above -noted comments. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (226) 753-1064 (c). Yours truly, Shilling Yip, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner cc. Matthew Warzecha, Polocorp Document Number: 4333938 Version: 1 Page 36 of 601 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good afternoon Brian, Katey Crawford Monday, March 27, 2023 5:02 PM Brian Bateman RE: 1385 Bleams Road ZBA - UD Comments cp2074-Towns_2023.03.23. pdf I am supportive of the revised concept dated March 23", 2023 (attached), with the following conditions: 1. An updated Tree Management plan be provided, including the required Butternut Health Assessments. 2. An updated Urban Design Brief be provided, reflective of the newly proposed concept, outcomes of the Tree Management Plan and Butternut Health Assessments. Best, Katey Katey Crawford, GALA, CSLA Senior Urban Designer / Planning Division / City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 / TTY 1-866-969-9994 jp.y„Cirawford( Ikiitchener..ca q 11- miq 17 From: Katey Crawford Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 12:29 PM To: Brian Bateman <Bria_u .._B t _m_ In.. .ISitdhene_r ca.> Subject: 1385 Bleams Road ZBA - UD Comments Good afternoon, Brian, Please see written comments attached for your reference and circulation. Thanks, Page 37 of 601 Katey Katey Crawford, OALA, CSLA Senior Urban Designer / Planning Division / City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 / TTY 1-866-969-9994 Latey.. Cirawfordliciitchein�eir..ca i Page 38 of 601 From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 3:35 PM To: Brian Bateman Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 1385 Bleams Road (ZBA) Good Afternoon Brian, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A) That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). B) That the developer shall include the following wording in the site plan agreement / condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: "7n order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 From: Christine Kompter <Ihiris:tim ICaus> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:17 PM To: DL # DSD—Planning............ Divusoon@kutchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <ri.rcau�at�q_ :s_@ :s. com>; Carlos Reyes < Irllo...Jeys.. _kkdh_en_e_ir ca>; Darren Kropf ........................_..... <Darrein.IKr0p itclherner.ca>: Dave Seller <Dave.Seiller@_KOtc_h.e nera_ca.>; David Paetz ................................................... ._ ......... <David.Paetz@.!Kitdh_e_ er.._c >; Ellen Straus <1E:..IIln.Stra_p.s@_kjtcihern.er.._ca.>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig ....................................................... ...................... ..... _ .......... Cameron<gUeug.cameiron@enovafrnrr.._ccaian.>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <s6J__ua_�n..run_e_pr.poweUoccrrrio>; Feds <ype..:Fe¢.,s.c>; GRCA - Planning (p.V_rn_rn.:in�randriveroca) <raVannin�u�randriveroca>; Greg Reitzel Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <J,q.n.d.u.,sepVannun@hyc9_rpp_Ine..com>; Jim Edmondson <�D_'om..lE;d_more.clso.n..�`�._I<otcV.n_euner.c�,>; Justin Readman <Ju.stin.Readma n_.( _kitchernera_ca>; Katherine Hughes <,O<atheri_In_e_a¢.l u. hes@Icutc_heneir.ca.>; Mike Seiling ........... <,19lDine.Sei.O_u .g.@_Kit hener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <11: e utuv.eyp.l� �_u�_cj_�_ tv _p.�rn�rn:tQ_e.pg Park Planning (SM) <Pairlk:P.Il in miring@Ik.p_tcheiner._ca>; Region - Planning <,PIl in in iiing p !iia. a.tir rns..@_regime.inc�foivateirlloo.c�.>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <,Pre 1p Ac�.iniin@Ikii.tclhr~In_eir.c >; Robert Morgan <,R b ar.t.alMicairgain@Ikii clheine?r c >; Steven Ryder Page 39 of 601 <.Steven..Ifty ir. ..Ik)tclh_ein_ ..r c:.a.>; Sylvie Eastman <S.yll�r g:Fgs.s Mein. Ikqcl�e er. ca>; Planning .......................................... <.PVarnrning wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary ( V_ap:u�_ burns@wrd.sb,ca) «p_a. n!!� burn�sb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <.R annIIng. _ L.d sh.....ga.> Cc: Brian Bateman <If3rp:a_u�..IB t�_rrr_a�r..l�_Vcu.�cOn�u�_�_U ga.> Subject: Circulation for Comment - 1385 Bleams Road (ZBA) Caution - External Email - This Message comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on unrecognized links or provide your username and/or password. Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folder 23-101841 (City staff) and SlnareFJ.11 (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to Brian Bateman, Senior Planner brian.bateman kitclhener.ca; 519-741-2200 x7869 . (.................................................................................................................................. ) Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca irk Disclaimer - This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and contain privileged or copyright information. You must not present this message to another party without gaining permission from the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. We do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects although due care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board. Page 40 of 601 From: Karen Tu Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 10:40 PM To: Brian Bateman; Ayo Owodunni Subject: Comments re: Proposed Development 1385 Bleams Road You doral ohen get e mi'ail frcen')� Le rn w his is im arta t Hello Brian and Ayo, I am writing re: the mailing I received regarding the Virtual Zoom Meeting scheduled for March 9th regarding the proposed residential development of 8 new townhomes at 1385 Bleams Road. As I am unable to attend this session, I am writing some of my comments for consideration below. As a long term (16 years) resident of Helena Feasby (HF) St, the street opposite the proposed development, I would like to understand the plans in place to support the additional traffic routing to this new development. With increased traffic in both directions of Bleams, it has been increasingly difficult to turn right onto HF going west on Bleams, and similarly, turning left onto HF when going east on Bleams. Are there plans to put dedicated turn lanes to support HF and the new development as the latter will introduce additional turn traffic at that intersection? Without dedicated lanes, I feel there is an increased likelihood of preventable traffic backup and collisions when impatient drivers behind a turning vehicle swerve to avoid slowing down to accommodate. Will residents at the new development be able to cut across Bleams and onto HF directly? I can potentially see this as hazardous for the safety of those using the sidewalk on Bleams, especially if there are plans to extend the asphalt trail down past the storm water pond. Furthermore, HF has seen its fair share of issues with cut -through traffic to the Good Life Fitness and the Williamsburg main street area, and many traffic studies have shown that volume and speed are a concern. What plans are in place to ensure the improvements made over the last several years are not lost with the introduction of the new developments across the street? What are the plans to maintain the heritage building in this new development? Is it converted into a non-residential community space? Are there plans, as indicated in the artist drawing, to plant lots of trees and foliage? Or is it simply artists rendering? What is the timeline of this development? I hope that the concerns of all residents are seriously considered and reflected on before the development is green lit to proceed. Regards, Karen Page 41 of 601 Staff Report J IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: April 24, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director, Planning Division, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Tim Donegani, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7062 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards DATE OF REPORT: April 13, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-160 SUBJECT: Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing RECOMMENDATION: That the Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing Feasibility Study be used to inform the Growing Together project for planning in Major Transit Station Areas and future updates to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law; and, That the Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing Feasibility Study be used to inform continuous improvement of development services processes; and further, That Staff be directed to further consider financial incentives for missing middle and affordable housing and report back to Council on next steps once additional information on Bill 23 regarding affordable and attainable housing is made available. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to share the findings of the Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing Feasibility Study, which was funded by Provincial Streamline Development Approval funding, and outline next steps. • The key finding of this report is that Kitchener is grappling with the challenges and opportunities associated with the delivery of missing middle and affordable housing. Kitchener is already a leader in this regard through its flexible and up to date zoning framework, continuous process improvements and financial incentives for affordable housing. Kitchener is uniquely positioned to further support this type of growth based on current demographic conditions, land availability, development feasibility conditions and a common desire to make it happen among both the public and private sector. The Study provides four key recommendations to advance these objectives in priority order: o reduce parking requirements; o increase density allowances; o provide financial supports; and o continue process improvements. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 42 of 601 • There are no financial implications of this report. • Engagement was focused on City and Regional staff, development industry and non- profit housing stakeholders. • This report supports A Vibrant Economy, A Caring Community and the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: While the city has experienced a record breaking pace of new housing starts over the last several years, Kitchener, like many other communities, is faced with significant housing supply crisis and housing affordability issues. The Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing study looks at ways to improve housing affordability, provide more diversity in the housing types being built, and increase overall housing supply — especially in missing middle housing typologies. Single detached dwellings and high-rise condominium apartment towers tend to have the best financial returns and therefore represent a large share of what has been built in recent years. This also helps explains why the missing middle forms are underrepresented. Enabling missing middle housing can broaden housing choice within neighbourhoods, foster complete and vibrant communities, and make efficient use of existing infrastructure. While many of the market and policy drivers of housing development are outside of the City's control, the City has significant opportunities to enable the development of more missing middle and affordable housing types. The City's existing initiatives such as streamlining the development approvals process, relatively progressive zoning by-law and financial incentives for affordable housing all help, but the study recommends that Kitchener has opportunities to go further. It recommends that Kitchener act quickly, boldly and with clarity to address the drivers of housing crisis that are within Kitchener's sphere of influence. The study recommends four incentives, financial and non-financial, that are within the city's control, to enable more missing middle and affordable housing. In order of priority, these are: • reduce parking requirements; • increase height and density permissions; • provide financial incentives; and • process improvements. Staff are generally supportive of the land use planning directions (i.e., reduced parking and increased height and density) and propose to consider them through the Growing Together project that will update the planning framework in Major Transit Station Areas later this year, and through the next Official Plan review. Process improvements will be implemented through continuous improvement and recommended financial incentives will be addressed in a future report to Council once additional information on Bill 23 regarding affordable and attainable housing is made available. BACKGROUND: The City's strategic plan, Official Plan, and Housing for All Strategy recognize the importance of using a broad range of tools to advance critical housing affordability objectives. Through report DSD -20-2014 council approved Housing for All which guides the Page 43 of 601 city's actions and investments to address local housing challenges. Three of its goals that are most relevant to this work include: • Help secure community, affordable rental and affordable ownership housing • Align policies, processes & use of city land to facilitate more affordable housing • Fill data gaps and establish monitoring and accountability mechanisms. The Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing Feasibility Study (MM+AH Study) (Attachment A) was prepared not only to advance work on Kitchener's Housing for All Strategy but also to inform Growing Together, Kitchener's project that will update land use, zoning and built form guidelines in the Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) west of the expressway; and to inform Kitchener's next Official Plan review. The MM+AH Study was facilitated through and supported by Provincial Streamline Development Approval funding. This report is one of a series of staff reports to be presented to Council for consideration in 2023-2024+ which focus on housing related studies and initiatives. The graphic below depicts the planned updates for Council in the next 12 months. Municipal Housing I gill 13, Bill 23, bill 109 " ° Shared Accommodations ' ° Evictions & Displacement Pledge Implementation Plan By-law (incl. Lodging House.) Toolkit Implementation Lower Doon Land Use Rental Replacement By-law Study Implementation Implementation Missing Middle and Eviction & Displacements �nnnEviction &^Displacement Affordable Housing Study Webpage & Online Toolkit Options Update Reporting Update Rental Replacement By-law Inclusionary Zoning information Report Direction Growing Together Implementation Inclusionary Zoning Implementation On March 20, 2023 through report DSD -2023-063 council supported Kitchener's Municipal Housing Pledge that includes 11 strategies and actions to support the building of 35,000 more homes by 2031. The MM+AH Study advances work on the following strategies and actions from Kitchener's Municipal Housing Pledge: • Item 1 - Updates to Kitchener's Official Plan and Zoning By-law to further enable an increased supply of missing middle housing. • Item 5 - Continued advancement of work on updates to land use and zoning within Major Transit Station Areas. • Item 7 - Continued work to implement the recommendations and action items from Kitchener's Housing for All Strategy, specifically including those that enable an increased housing supply or streamlining development approvals. The MM+AH Study also aligns and acts on direction from Regional Official Plan amendment number 6 (ROPA 6). This amendment was approved by Regional Council in August 2022 Page 44 of 601 and by the province on April 11, 2023. ROPA 6 includes polices that seek to increase housing choice and support the construction of a range and mix of housing, including affordable and `missing middle' housing. It defines missing middle housing as "Multiple unit housing including, but not limited to multiplexes, stacked townhouses, apartments, and other low-rise housing options." REPORT: Problem Statement: Kitchener has seen strong residential growth (Attachment B: Card 6 Growth ) in the last several years especially in high rise apartments and single detached dwellings (although the latter has been decreasing in recent years). However, development of missing middle forms has been limited (Attachment B, Card 8 Housing A ). Missing middle forms can add more affordable market housing and increase housing diversity. The market, alongside existing government funding programs, is not delivering enough affordable housing to meet community needs (Attachment B, Cards 1, 5, 10 Housing A ). As part of the Province's Streamline Development Approval Funding, the City retained a consulting team to explore the key market, policy, regulatory and process barriers to delivering the full range of housing types, including missing middle and affordable housing. The consultants' MM+AH Study provides recommendations to advance the objectives of improving housing diversity, affordability and overall supply. Defining Affordable and Missing Middle ffTUPP7rcYYrPT*ffQ The MM+AH Study defines missing middle housing as including all vertically and horizontally integrated forms of housing in a medium -density format, for example, traditional townhouses (i.e., street fronting and cluster townhouses), new format townhouses (stacked and infill townhouses) and multiplexes (low-rise and mid -rise apartments). Missing middle housing has the benefits of: • increasing housing options in existing neighbourhoods that supports suitable housing options throughout a person or family's life; • making efficient use of existing infrastructure (Attachment B, Card 3 Development ); and • providing gentle density for neighbourhoods that are losing population. Missing middle can support affordability but is not necessarily affordable housing. The MM+AH Study uses the shared Provincial Policy Statement, Regional and City definition of affordable based on the lesser of average market rents and prices, or the housing that low and moderate income households can afford by spending 30% of their income on housing. Page 45 of 601 In 2021, ownership housing costing less than $385,500 and rental housing costing less than $1,307/month were considered affordable. Affordable housing can be market or subsidized, rental or ownership and in any kind of building. Housing trends: The MM+AH Study considered Kitchener's existing housing trends. Key takeaways include: 36% of renters and 23% of owners spend more than 30% of their income on housing 0 8% of total households in Kitchener are in unsuitable (overcrowded) housing • Housing prices have increased rapidly over the past 10 years and dropped somewhat in the last year (Attachment B, Card 6 Housing A ). Ownership housing affordability has declined despite this price drop due to rising interest rates. Kitchener's rental housing supply has increased over the past eight years • Rented condominium units have been responsible for a progressively larger portion of that growth as compared to purpose-built rental. Interest in primary rental development is strong, nevertheless. • Southwest Kitchener has accommodated half of the city's new housing since 2016, primarily through low density greenfield development. • Only 6% of growth since 2016 was in central Kitchener • There has been a significant increase in the number of new Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the last several years, primarily in the form of attached dwelling units (i.e., duplexes). 12% of new units in 2021 were in the form of ADUs. Most of these ADUs are in suburban areas. Missing middle forms and opportunity The MM+AH Study included architectural demonstration plans for four missing middle typologies including infill new format townhouses, multi-plexes, low rise apartments and mid - rise housing typologies to better understand their key design attributes, financial and policy barriers and opportunities. There is significant capacity for missing middle housing. The MM+AH Study identified approximately 24,300 sites across Kitchener that could accommodate these missing middle types. If just 2% of these properties where redeveloped in this way, 20% of the city's forecasted new residents by 2051 could be accommodated in missing middle housing. Page 46 of 601 n, J14 %io "� rr err r1�m rraii Financial Feasibility A key element of the MM+AH Study was to help describe the drivers of recent development patterns. Professional Land Economics at Parcel used a discounted cash flow model to test the financial viability of the full range of prototypical housing typologies (single detached to high rise) and the implications of ownership versus rental tenure and suburban versus central locations. There are notable barriers to entry for MM+AH projects, which are inherently less financially feasible when compared to more prevalent housing types. • A convergence of growth pressures, housing demand, rising property and land values, construction cost escalation, increasing interest rates all challenge the development of MM+AH. The delivery of MM+AH has lagged demand, largely because of poor market performance and financial feasibility. • Many missing middle forms are challenged by their poor financial attractiveness relative to other housing typologies and other possible lower -risk investment opportunities (i.e. 10 -year government bonds); • Rental tenures consistently underperform ownership. The analysis shows 5 profitable rental typologies (i.e., Suburban Towns, 8-Plex, Low -Rise in both the Central and Suburban neighbourhoods, and ADUs). However, all but the ADUs generated too small a profit to be viable. • The economics of providing three-bedroom units in high rise buildings is challenging and can be more costly than building in grade related units. Requiring 10% of units in a prototypical high rise building that would otherwise only include 1-2 bedroom units typically reduces both the total number of units and revenue by 6% and reduces developer profit by a quarter. • Adding affordable units negatively affects the financial viability of all typologies, but high-rise apartments have the greatest financial capacity to absorb affordable housing requirements while maintaining profitability. Page 47 of 601 • Parking costs are extremely impactful on development viability. Structured parking costs between $50,000 and $95,000 per spot, typically 5-11 % of total costs of a mid - or high-rise building. The maximum estimated 10 -year parking gross revenue per spot when rented separately is just $18,000. MM+AH Study Recommendations There are many factors that directly impact housing development trends, only some of which can be influenced by the City. In consideration of the housing trends, study objectives and opportunities, the MM+AH Study recommends that decision making and prioritization of actions should value: • Flexibility • Collaboration • Sustainability, and • Outcome -driven approaches The recommended short list of incentives, both financial and non-financial are provided in priority order of impact. 1. PARKING REDUCTIONS are an extremely impactful incentive to encourage the development of MM+AH. The MM+AH Study recommends that the City take immediate strides to modernize parking standards to be more in-line with continued shifts in consumer / lifestyle preferences, consistent with the demonstration concepts identified in this study (note the demonstration concepts generally include less parking than would be required by the zoning by-law and instead reflect potential market demand for parking for missing middle or affordable housing). This could be most impactful in areas where existing and/or planned transit infrastructure is available. Staff intend to use the study findings to inform recommended parking requirements within Major Transit Station Areas to be established through the Growing Together project which is scheduled for council's consideration by the end of 2023. City-wide changes of parking requirements will be considered as part of the next review of the Official Plan and implementing zoning by-law, currently expected to commence in 2024. 2. DENSITY/HEIGHT ALLOWANCES — In many cases, increasing density and/or height can be extremely helpful in enabling projects to achieve other city -building objectives — including affordable housing delivery. The MM+AH Study recommends: • Allowing more diverse housing typologies in existing low rise neighbourhoods including multiplexes and low-rise apartments • Amending as -of -right zoning permissions by increasing floor space ratio and height limits for low-rise (e.g. up to six storeys) and mid -rise (e.g. 7-12 storey) built forms • Additional density permissions in high-rise built forms) to enable affordable housing delivery • Relaxing or elimination of policies and regulations that inhibit delivery of MM+AH (e.g. requiring on-site truck turnarounds) Staff intend to use the findings of the study to inform planning policies and regulations within Major Transit Station Areas via the Growing Together project. City-wide considerations will occur as part of the next review of the Official Plan and implementing zoning by-law. Page 48 of 601 3. FINANCIAL SUPPORTS — Providing appropriate financial incentives can support developers in providing MM+AH that is not occurring otherwise. Bill 23 recently introduced mandatory financial incentives for non-profit, affordable, and attainable housing as well as the development of up to two additional dwelling units per lot. These kinds of projects will not pay development charges (DCs), parkland dedication or community benefits charges (CBCs). The MM+AH Study recommends that the City consider going above and beyond these new mandates by introducing additional financial relief to drive more affordable housing and specific missing middle typologies that offer the greatest opportunity for change (i.e., Plexes and Low -Rise typologies). The two financial incentives recommended to optimize delivery of MM+AH units for a given city investment are: • Exempting applicable development from taxes during development or beyond • Rebating or waiving DCs and other city fees for applicable MM+AH projects Financial incentives to for-profit corporations could be provided within a Community Improvement Plan program or Municipal Capital Facility Agreements. Through the 2022 budget process, as part of the implementation of the Housing for All Strategy, Council established a program and $2 million reserve fund contribution to offset the (DCs) for affordable rental housing provided by non -profits. Since the adoption of the Housing For All Strategy, the City has supported the creation of 128 units of supportive housing through a mix of financial support, fee waivers, city land and expedited approvals. Further there is approximately an additional 115 units of supportive housing confirmed in the development queue that staff will also support in collaboration with community partners and the Region of Waterloo (data based on report COR -2022-104 from February 2022). In November 2022, Bill 23 amended the Development Charges Act to exempt non-profit housing from DCs, and the affordable housing reserve is no longer required to offset non- profits' DCs. The reserve currently has a $1.2m uncommitted balance that could be allocated to other financial supports for affordable housing. Bill 23 also introduced DC exemptions for affordable and attainable housing provided by the private sector. These provisions are not yet in effect and await provincial regulations to define affordable and attainable housing. Uncertainty remains regarding the scale of DC exemptions that must be provided and the resulting impacts on city finances. Given the uncertainty around Bill 23 implications for affordable and attainable housing, and the possibility of using Community Benefits Charges to fund affordable housing initiatives, a future report to council will be prepared that considers: • the recommended financial incentives in this study; • the future uses for the affordable housing reserve; • coordination with reqional incentives; and • budget implications and legal mechanisms for incentives (i.e. A Community Improvement Plan or Municipal Capital Facilities Agreements). The timing of the report back to Council on these matters is dependent on the timing of additional information provided on Bill 23 as outlined above. 4. PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS — Although generally least impactful of the four shortlisted incentives to MM+AH development feasibility, reducing delays and improving speed -to -market can be beneficial to all parties. In recent years the City has prioritized continuous improvements as demonstrated with the Development Services Review in 2019. Page 49 of 601 This resulted in the creation of a customer -informed workplan that included 18 lean improvement projects involving over 111 staff. Since that time, several streamlining projects have been initiated with the support of provincial funding along with a reorganization of the Planning Division to include two Project Managers who support affordable housing and purpose-built rental projects. The MM+AH Study recommends that the City continue to build upon recent streamlining projects by continuing to enable a more expeditious path to building permit issuance. Study recommendations include: • Simplify and reduce mandatory study requirements for affordable housing projects • Delegate, where appropriate and legislatively authorized, more approvals to staff including more heritage permits and lifting of holding provisions • Build upon and formalize the City's' existing affordable housing concierge function, delivered by the Project Managers, to reduce approval time for MM+AH • Reduce and focus public meeting requirements • Consider template -based approval systems As part of Kitchener's Municipal Housing Pledge, Kitchener committed to continuous improvement of development review processes to expedite approvals and reduce costs where appropriate. In addition to the four recommendations about the study recommend that the City solidify its vision and appetite for change in the realm of missing middle and affordable housing, including alignment of that vision with Regional priorities. This includes a) Confirming & Publicizing Growth Targets b) Deepening Regional Partnership c) Educating and Galvanizing the Public at -Large d) Building Capacity of Industry Players e) Deepening Industry Relationships In order to make quick and meaningful progress on enabling MM+AH the study recommends: 1. Take Action — Leverage Growing Together and the Official Plan review to move quickly on key recommendations related to height, density, and parking 2. Make it Happen — It is time for bold action, as -of -right permissions are important 3. Provide Clarity — Clarify operating definitions of missing middle and affordable housing 4. Educate — help develop consensus on building more missing middle and affordable housing to improve efficiency in delivery. Help encourage new and established developers to invest in these typologies 5. Establish Replicability — establish a templated approval system for desirable housing forms 6. Identify Funding Sources — Prioritize MM+AH housing delivery relative to other priorities. A joint effort between developers, housing providers and all levels of government will be required 7. Monitor and Refresh - continuously re-evaluate incentives around the delivery of MM+AH considering the rapidly evolving market and policy environment Page 50 of 601 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports A Vibrant Economy, A Caring Community and the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — This work was completed with existing resources and approved budgets. Consultant costs were 100% covered by the Provincial Streamline Development Approvals Funding. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. Future implementation of financial and non-financial incentives as well as process, policy and regulatory revisions and any impacts on capital and operating implications will be detailed in future reports to Council. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. CONSULT — Through the preparation of the study, the consultants interviewed several development industry stakeholders, non-profit housing providers and a broad range of city and regional staff that support city building and affordable housing. Staff discussed initial report findings with the Kitchener Development Liaison Committee on March 17 and April 21, 2023. Broad community engagement will be planned and executed through implementation of the recommendations as appropriate. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • DSD -20-214 Housing for All — City of Kitchener Housing Strategy • DSD -2023-063 City of Kitchener Municipal Housing Pledge • FIN -2022-155 Streamlined Development Approvals Fund (SDAF) REVIEWED BY: Adam Clark, Senior Urban Designer (Architecture & Urban Form) Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy & Research Ryan Hagey, Director, Financial Planning and Reporting Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Enabling Missing Middle & Affordable Housing Feasibility Study Attachment B — Growing Together Card Deck Page 51 of 601 St�411AR "ll ®R�AFV UP Pare I D E N S I I 'Y Page 52 of 601 X,J "T 1",1--i FN i, ­,,,,,R_ PREPARED FOR: The Corporation of the City of Kitchener 200 Kind Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4V4 PREPARED BY: Parcel Economics Inc. inf*Oparcelec*nomics.com 4164694264 In cooperation with: Smart Density -andl- StrateMyCorp Inc. April 11, 2023 2022-0047 hV"1B. ec 'UVV"01 W V,,, UUP 1'd��Ili UUVd�Ih'4"�,,G, ��eUP"'�'VdVu°S uquieUV Page 53 of 601 Acknowle-slgements Executive Summary 1.6 Intr aluction...................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Backgroun4l...........................................................................................................................................2 1.2 Stury Parameters................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Assumptions & Limitations................................................................................................................ 15 2.0 Existing Con4itions.................................................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Market Context................................................................................................................................... 26 2.2 Stakeholder Perceptions...................................................................................................................37 2.3 Incentives & Best Practices................................................................................................................46 3.0 Design Prototypes......................................................................................................................................52 3.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................................53 3.2 Development Concept Profiles........................................................................................................55 3.3 Scope of Missing MiddleOpportunity ............................................................................................ 65 4.6 Financial Feasilrility....................................................................................................................................74 4.1 The Basics............................................................................................................................................ 75 4.2 Baseline Analysis................................................................................................................................26 4.3 Sensitivity Analysis.............................................................................................................................. S7 5.0 Solutions & Implementation......................................................................................................................99 5.1 Context..............................................................................................................................................1 •• Success Factors: Missing Middle & Affordable Housing.............................................................................163 5.2 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................169 5.3 Guiding Principles Evaluation.........................................................................................................13• 5.4 Mechanisms for Implementation....................................................................................................134 4.6 Summary & Next Steps............................................................................................................................144 6.1 Key Takeaways..................................................................................................................................145 6.2 NextSteps .........................................................................................................................................149 Page 54 of 601 Appen4lix A: Glossary of Terms......................................................................................................................152 Appen4lix B: CMHC Nei!qh6ourh000l Profiles..............................................................................................15! Appen4lix C: Incentives Best practices Review.............................................................................................1 65 Appen4lix D: Financial Analysis iack!grounel................................................................................................173 Appen4lix E: Fiscal Impact of Financial Incentives........................................................................................1 t7 Page 55 of 601 Table of Figures Figure 1.1 The 'Perfect Storm" of Factors Influencing Housing Development Trends ............................... 3 Figure 1.2 The Complete Spectrum of Housing Typ*logies.......................................................................... 9 Figure 1.3 The Complete Spectrum of Housing Typ*l*gies + "Missing Middle" Identificati*n .............. 11 Figure 1.4 City of Kitchener Definitions of Housing Aff*rdalrility................................................................ 12 Figure 1.5 Housing Afferdawility in Kitchener Icy Income percentile (2021) .............................................. 13 Figure 1.4 Comparison ofAfforda6ility Definitions to Market -Based prices/Rents...................................14 Figure 2.1 Kitchener CMHC Neighbourhood Zones + Estimated 2022 population.................................21 Figure 2.2 population Growth by Neighbourhood (2014 - 2021)..............................................................22 Figure 2.3 1 0 -year population Growth / Decline by Census Tract...............................................................23 Figure 2.4 Average Household Income...........................................................................................................24 Figure 2.5 Kitchener Housing Stock(2021)....................................................................................................25 Figure 2.6 Census Dwellings by Neighbourhood (201 1 - 202 1) ................................................................2d Figure 2.7 Rental Units in Kitchener-Cairnbridge-Waterloo CMA................................................................27 Figure 2.8 Kitchener Units Owned by Investors (2420).................................................................................2i Figure 2.9 Households in Overcrowded Housing..........................................................................................29 Figure 2.10 Households Spending More Than 301b of Household Income on Housing .......................... 34 Figure 2.11 10 -year Building permit Heat Map..............................................................................................31 Figure 2.12 1 •-year Building permits by Type................................................................................................32 Figure 2.13 10-yearADU Building permits.....................................................................................................33 Figure 2.14 Recent Development Land Sales.................................................................................................34 Figure 2.15 Actively Selling New Construction projects (Summer 2022) ...................................................35 Figure 2.16 Average Resale House prices by Type........................................................................................36 Figure 2.17 Overlap of preferred StakeholderOutcomes ............................................................................45 Figure 2.18 Summary of Incentive Types: Financial, process & policy........................................................47 Figure 2.19 Existing Missing Middle & Affordable Housing Incentives in Kitchener................................54 Figure 3.1 Residential Land Use Designations...............................................................................................54 Figure 3.2 Residential Zoning permissions..................................................................................................... 55 Figure 3.3 Visual Demonstration of Singles Concept (A) ..............................................................................57 Figure 3.4 Visual Demonstration of ADU Concept(B)...................................................................................5t Figure 3.5 Visual Demonstration of Traditional Towns Concept (C 1) .........................................................59 Figure 3.6 Visual Demonstration of New Format Towns Concept(C2)....................................................... d• Figure 3.7 Visual Demonstration of plexes Concept (C3)............................................................................. 61 Figure 3.t Visual Demonstration of Low -Rise Concept(D1)......................................................................... 62 Figure 3.9 Visual Demonstration of Mid -Rise Concept (111112) .........................................................................d3 Page 56 of 601 Figure 3.16 Visual Demonstration of High -Rise Concept(E)........................................................................44 Figure 3.11 Missing Mielslle Parcel Characteristics........................................................................................66 Figure 3.12 Kitchener Missing Mielelle Parcels -Total Supply......................................................................47 Figure 3.13 Summary of Potential Market "Uptake" of Missing Mi4WIe Typologies .................................. 71 Figure 3.14 Current Zoning Designation of potential Missing Moslelle parcels .......................................... 72 Figure 4.1 The "Sweet Spot' for Successful Development projects............................................................ 75 Figure 4.2 Basic Structure of Financial Feasibility.......................................................................................... 77 Figure 4.3 pro Forma Use Cases...................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 4.4 potential profit of Baseline Scenarios............................................................................................ S1 Figure 4.5 IRR & EMx of potentially Profitable Baseline Scenarios............................................................... S2 Figure 4.4 potential Cash -on -Cash Returns of Baseline Rental Scenarios .................................................. 84 Figure 4.7 Summary of Baseline Return Metrics by Typology ...................................................................... S5 Figure 4.8 New Construction Apartment an4l Stacke4l Townhouse Sales ($) ............................................. 90 Figure 4.9 New Construction Apartment ani Stackei Townhouse Sales ($PSF)...................................... 96 Figure 4.1 • Average private an4l Con4l*minium Apartment Rents.............................................................91 FiMure 4.11 Construction Cost In4lex...............................................................................................................95 Figure 4.12 Recent Interest Rate Increases Since January 2422..................................................................94 Figure 5.1 Summary of Factors Impacting Housing Development............................................................1.3 Figure 5.2 Unravelling Complex HousinM Supply Issueswith Multiple Incentive Tools .........................1 13 Figure 5.3 I4lentifie-4 "Shortlist" of Incentive Options for Testing...............................................................1 15 Figure 5.4 Summary of Incentives Evaluation - Impacton Financial anal Feasibility Criteria .................12! Figure 5.5 Key Considerations for CIPs anal MCFAs....................................................................................139 Figure D.1 Central vs. Suburban Neighb•urho"s.....................................................................................174 Figure D.2 Scenarios Tested for Baseline Financial Feasibility..................................................................175 Figure D.3 Baseline Financial Feasibility Assumptions................................................................................174 Figure D.4 Baseline Financial Feasibility Analysis - All Typ*logies, Tenures & Locations ......................177 Figure E.1 Municipal Cost of Financial Incentives........................................................................................1ff Page 57 of 601 Parcel Project Consulting Team The project consulting team responsible for completing this study included a diverse range of industry-leading professionals offering expertise spanning the full breadth of land economics, land use planning, urban design / architecture, as well as municipal strategy and policy implementation. Parcel Economics Inc. ("Parcel") has served as the project lead for this study, with additional project support provided by senior members of Smart Density and StrategyCorp. .m. Parcel City of Kitchener Project Team Our study process involved extensive collaboration with staff from both the City of Kitchener and Region of Waterloo. Consisting of a core working group from the City's Development Services and Financial Services departments, these additional personnel provided input, advice and direction from the following perspectives: Land Use Planning & Policy; Urban Design & Architecture; Customer Experience & Project Management; Realty Services; Financial Planning & Reporting; as well as Business Development. Other Participants Our detailed research program and "ground -testing" of study recommendations also involved engaging with a range of stakeholders, including external industry participants active in the development of new market and non - market housing in Kitchener. This involved soliciting feedback form a diverse group of for-profit developers, non- profit housing organizations and other individuals familiar with the delivery / management of new -construction ownership and rental residential uses. Page 58 of 601 Parcel Executive Summary The Study • A multi -disciplinary project consulting team—led by Parcel in cooperation with partner firms Smart Density and StrategyCorp—has been retained by the City of Kitchener to complete a study that evaluates and develops recommendations relating to the key market, policy and regulatory solutions capable of maximizing the provision of missing middle and affordable housing in the community. • To this end, an extensive study program has been undertaken that included both qualitative and quantitative research elements. This has involved a review of current real estate market conditions and the factors affecting the delivery of this type of housing in Kitchener (or lack thereof), engaging with key private and public sector stakeholders active in the local market, consideration of best practices from other jurisdictions, as well as detailed testing of prototypical building designs for financial feasibility. • A full spectrum of housing typologies has been identified, whereby "missing middle" formats include all vertically and horizontally integrated housing in a medium -density format. "MISSING MIDDLE" II IIAW IIIWW INW!.wH Y 11 111H xV1IIIWWIIIINW n'"'W° -MISSING LITTLE" -MISSING LITTLE" • The key findings from this study are ultimately intended to assist the City of Kitchener in meeting a range of strategic housing objectives, including improving conditions for increased: (i) housing diversity; (ii) housing affordability; and (iii) housing supply across a variety of locational and neighbourhood contexts. i Page 59 of 601 Parcel The Challenge • Housing has rapidly become one of the most pressing issues facing municipalities across Ontario and beyond, as new residential developments continue to focus on one of two extremes: high-density apartments and low-density single -detached housing. • With limited uptake and delivery of "missing middle" housing forms, this dynamic also continues to exacerbate issues relating to purchase and rental pricing, including the ability of many households to reasonably afford housing locally. • In response to a "perfect storm" of community -specific and broader macroeconomic challenges, the delivery of missing middle and affordable housing has lagged demand; largely as a function of poor market performance and financial feasibility. uh The Opportunity Ri Juny oillstiuctakm ";IhOliuug Pollcy + opclt,, +r + ('`� �t: + 11111oiii lc & II oc • Recognizing the range of internal and external factors involved, a multi -faceted solution will undoubtedly be required to enable the development of preferred housing types moving forward. This could include a mix of Financial, Process and Policy -based incentives that have been identified through this study. • By implementing a comprehensive suite of incentives, the City of Kitchener stands to benefit from a range of economic, social and operational improvements that would not otherwise be available via a "status quo" or "do nothing" scenario. Furthermore, inaction risks compounding existing housing supply issues. III':)A" + Ino irr�i���� �!�n + hvu+ muuti�,�0s + III (�_nfim;;,�,n 11 Page 60 of 601 Parcel The Prototypes • Led by Smart Density, prototypical development concepts have been established for the full range of housing typologies identified to help visualize opportunities for missing middle housing in Kitchener. Extra attention was given to four key missing middle typologies that demonstrated the most potential in the Kitchener context: "New Format Towns", "Plexes", as well as "Low -Rise" and "Mid -Rise" apartments'. • Based on a review of existing parcel fabric information for Kitchener, approximately one-third of current properties across the City (24,300 total sites) could accommodate these missing middle typologies. The majority of these eligible—or "candidate"—sites already have residential permissions and would present relatively straight -forward conditions for development (e.g., acquisition / demolition / remediation, etc.). • Depending on future levels of market acceptance—or "uptake"—of missing middle development in Kitchener, up to 1 in every 5 new residents in Kitchener could be accommodated on just 2% of all properties city-wide to 2051. Op...,r; I ,,.d+aJ o„vo Iia-,inei � ,7I pw��., ¢V, �S'�,:,�;�"�:Iiala��i7;wo�I �w�t i,: �¢¢d;�d� && ���p� ��dw��NVv L'I & 8'are��r I,I �,��,��i ��� �:. q � �F� is n7�. �ry�li of i &����i��. �, ri ¢, � t v�y 7 I�a� �; M w �p 1: ,a Mxo�'(,- �o,:), oq city b d Ji n u� 0ncl P I o u w) h,,lw �yI')�I+, :rd or 8,7i'Vof I �Iu'wIu 1� I h c w�� aq 111 Page 61 of 601 Parcel Recommendation #1: Solidify the City's vision and appetite for change in the realm of missing middle and affordable housing, including alignment of that vision with Regional priorities. • Affordable housing is already a priority for Kitchener Council, City staff and residents, but the development landscape and needs of local residents continues to evolve. Furthermore, the Province of Ontario recently introduced Bill 23 and Bill 39 with the intent of increasing housing supply in the province, including specific consideration for both missing middle typologies and affordable housing. • These ongoing changes will require the City to consider the impact of evolving market and policy environments as it explores additional options to reinforce the development of this type of housing in a manner that is suitable for the community. • The municipality can re -confirm and invigorate its vision and strategic approach to enabling missing middle / affordable housing by considering the following key measures: - Confirm & Publicize Growth Targets for Missing Middle & Affordable Housing; - Deepen Regional Partnerships; - Educate and Galvanize the Public at -Large; - Build Capacity of Industry Players, including Non -Traditional Developers and Not -for -Profit Organizations; and, - Deepen Industry Relationships. Recommendation #2: Further assess and implement a range of incentives that enable the construction of missing middle and affordable housing stock in the City of Kitchener. iv Page 62 of 601 Parcel • In the same way that the current housing crisis continues to be a function of many different macro and micro -economic factors, so too will the solution to these problems require multiple different tools—or incentives—to "unravel" the current situation and encourage preferred housing forms and/or pricing. To this end, four distinct incentive options have been recommended in this study: Financial Incentive #1: Tax & Fee Adjustments • Exempt tax requirements for applicable rental and ownership development projects for the duration of development or longer. Rebate or waive development charges and fees for applicable missing P g Pp g middle and affordable housing typologies. Process Incentive #2: Approval Time Reduction Introduce further process change and improvements to ultimately produce a meaningful reduction in approval timelines for development applications, particularly those that meet missing middle and affordability criteria. Policy Incentive #3: Height & Density Allowance Introduce further as -of -right provisions in existing City (and potential Regional) land use policies and by-laws to permit more efficient use of land. Incentive #4: Parking Reduction • Introduce further reductions to parking requirements to both reduce costs and enable more efficient use of available land. • All preferred—or "shortlisted"—incentives have been measured against a range of evaluation criteria, including consideration of factors that are within the immediate control of the City (e.g., relating to process and policy), as well as more outward -facing conditions (e.g., market and financial feasibility). • Overall, it will likely be necessary to combine—or "layer"—these incentives in the Kitchener context for maximum impact and flexibility, with the following prioritization: v Page 63 of 601 Parcel ,Parking Reductions - The City should take immediate strides to modernize parking standards to be more in-line with continued shifts in consumer / lifestyle preferences, as well as consistent with the prototypical development concepts developed for this study. Height & Density Allowances -The City should seek to amend as -of -right development permissions for selected typologies to leverage the benefits associated with "nudging" projects in favour of achieving broader city -building objectives (e.g., increase height thresholds for Low -Rise and Mid - Rise building formats relative to current definitions, as well as consider the provision of additional density in High -Rise contexts to support affordable housing delivery).' ,Financial Supports - In light of recent legislative changes via Bill 23, the City should consider going "above and beyond" these new mandates by introducing additional financial relief that specifically targets: (i) affordable / attainable housing delivery; and/or (ii) selected missing middle typologies that offer the greatest opportunity for change locally. Process - The City should seek to build upon recent internal -facing efficiencies by enabling a more expeditious path to building permit issuance from the perspective of local developers (e.g., less cumbersome application requirements and other streamlining beyond the immediate purview of the municipality's day-to-day operations). Implementation • Two focused areas of opportunity have emerged from this study that reflect the inherent duality of the research program requested by the City: Improving Housing Diversity ("Choice") - The greatest opportunities for expanding missing middle housing options lie in the Plexes and Low -Rise typologies, which achieve a "sweet spot" of scale, efficiency and ease of entry to the market. The City should consider implementing a comprehensive suite of incentives targeted specifically at either / both of these typologies, to the full extent possible. Improving Housing Affordability ("Price") - The affordable housing landscape can benefit indirectly through any form of increased housing supply and diversification. High -Rise built environments where additional efficiencies exist can provide among the most immediate opportunity to leverage the benefits of new market -rate development to help offset lost revenue opportunities in the delivery of more affordable housing. I 9 r sOkic!^ rw" 'PIUH ", a -off, w78r til and WI u81 a��;8„r + o„ „y Iofkoi ,I/ rf o �d,v �tl`d pr opu�'N:, vi Page 64 of 601 Parcel • In addition to confirming the exact scope and scale of incentives to deploy, the City must consider what policy levers are available to enable the implementation of their preferred suite of incentives. Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) and Municipal Capital Facilities Agreements (MCFAs) are two commonly used mechanisms in Ontario municipalities to provide financial incentives to private developers, and generally well-regarded by municipal leaders and staff for their ability to produce robust results in the realm of affordable housing. Non-profit developers can receive municipal funding through other tools. • Take Action (Speed) - Every bit counts and no single housing typology is capable of solving the housing crisis, so the City should take immediate action to encourage all kinds of new residential development, including via pending updates to Official Plan policies. • Make It Happen (Boldness) - It is time for bold action and the City should be encouraged to adopt a "wartime mentality", to push boundaries and to avoid indecision—or "analysis paralysis"—including decisive change through as -of -right permissions in Zoning. • Provide Clarity- The City should clearly define and communicate what constitutes missing middle and affordable housing to avoid confusion and/or disagreement among stakeholders, including tying into broader definitions wherever possible (e.g., adopting Provincial definitions in pending policy updates). • Educate - Education can serve as another effective tool to establish consensus, improve awareness and dispel myths at the outset of any conversation around missing middle and affordable housing. This includes addressing unwarranted NIMBY -ism, exposing established developers to new investment opportunities, as well as encouraging the entry of new participants to the housing development industry. • Establish Replicability- Rather than a debate -based approvals system, the City should investigate more templated approval systems to foster replicability in preferred housing forms that are compatible with the Kitchener market. • Identify Funding Sources - Wherever shortfalls are identified, a joint effort between the municipality and local housing developersd providers will be required to capture any and all opportunities for external funding (e.g., via other levels of government, etc.). • Monitor & Refresh - There will be an inherent need to regularly monitor and update the City's rationale for implementing incentives in response to ever-changing market conditions. vii Page 65 of 601 I I - - MOP Mel Key Findings • This study has been undertaken to evaluate and develop recommendations relating to the key market, policy and regulatory solutions capable of maximizing the provision of missing middle and affordable housing. • The study seeks to assist the City of Kitchener in meeting housing objectives to improve housing diversity, affordability, and overall supply across a variety of locational / neighbourhood contexts. • The scope of work has included establishing baseline market conditions, developing and testing prototypical building designs for financial feasibility, identifying incentive options. Parcel • "Missing Middle" includes all vertically and horizontally integrated forms of housing in a medium -density format (e.g., Traditional Towns, New Format Towns, Plexes, Low -Rise / Mid -Rise apartments). • Based on the City of Kitchener definition of "affordability" as of 2021, ownership housing is considered affordable if it costs $385,500 or less and rental housing is considered affordable if it costs $1,300 per month or less. 1 Page 66 of 601 Parcel 1.1 Background Housing has rapidly become one of the most pressing issues facing municipalities across Ontario and beyond, as new residential developments continue to focus on one of two extremes: high-density apartments and low- density single -detached housing. Despite the delivery of record numbers of new residential units across the Province in recent years, purchase and rental price growth—driven at least in part by increased hard and soft building construction costs—continues to outpace the ability of many households to reasonably afford them. Similarly, many communities continue to struggle with limited uptake and development interest in "missing middle" and mid -rise housing forms, largely as a function of poor market acceptance and financial feasibility. These challenges to housing affordability and diversity have become so acute that business organizations, employers and governments alike have now started to acknowledge this dynamic as materially influencing the liveability and economic competitiveness of their communities. In turn, municipalities are continuing to explore innovative approaches to increase the supply of preferred housing options in a financially sustainable manner. These efforts are not only targeted at new construction (greenfield) areas, but also in attempt to preserve income - diverse communities in well-established, amenity -rich neighbourhoods. Recognizing the range of internal and external factors involved (e.g., broader macroeconomic conditions and external market trends vs. municipal -facing variables such as process and policy -related improvements that are more within the immediate control of the City of Kitchener), a multi -faceted solution will be required to enable the development of preferred housing types into the future. 2 Page 67 of 601 Parcel I iyuae'I."I The "Perfect Storm" of Factors Influencing Housing Development Trends G1,I)W1111h11 I ishi7g Coll IsriuC61 �ui u7ia;� ShIifiuingll"iflh y ri es sa ii es / + 11'r oIna ,rlyr / + (":(uaA + 11111 o,r'os,1, Ilo + f) ii, io r i l iac; II (-, ,,� )r unand I and/,a',alm!s _alatira 11 ry ' urrunr S, 11u(ti.ary.u, ni.arc+; 1,,m DI ri:,)r iIk,i Il uIIoi�I g7i.Rrg7 , oigdy t'a oIIrpd ,4I a1 1,0, a gaa le 0: , rrw A71os Ia i; b - on w,ioratHi l a;1 pdig (A iaioln C! (9cl i Ilk) ;l h_rs �IIrIe figi,jm JHS )siLdhi y ,ara,ul �,i�� ur�g�,9 whWd wnp_hiut. In light of these housing challenges, this study has been undertaken to evaluate and develop recommendations relating to the key market, policy and regulatory solutions capable of maximizing the provision of missing middle and mid -rise housing forms in Kitchener. To this end, a key element of this study has been to deliver a data -driven and detailed supporting financial analysis capable of "demystifying" recent development patterns. This has served as a critical baseline in answering the initial question of "why are things the way they are?" before developing more creative solutions in response to the current realities of the market and underlying needs of the development community to achieve project viability. Similarly, in an effort to generate consensus among all parties involved, we have endeavoured to highlight the unique perspectives of both public and private sector interests through this work. This has been done to identify potential areas of commonality—as well as disagreement—as it relates to the delivery of missing middle housing forms and, more broadly, residential uses that are able to satisfy the needs of a growing and increasingly diverse 3 Page 68 of 601 Parcel community. In our opinion, this study represents an ideal opportunity to bring together "both sides of the story" and identify the preferred roles and responsibilities of all participants to achieve the identified housing objectives. Why Missing Middle Housing? While the benefits of providing affordable housing across all income levels are well recognized, it is also important to appreciate that there are plenty of discernable benefits of missing middle housing, many of which are common across both public and private sector perspectives: • Increasing the total supply of housing and not limiting growth exclusively to greenfield development; • Making more efficient use of both existing and recent investments in municipal infrastructure and servicing, including roads, sewers, and transit; • Improving housing "choice" and diversity, which benefits residences at all stages of life, income levels and unique household needs; • Allowing for the creation—and/or maintenance—of communities that are accommodating to growing families and/or multi -generational households; • Fostering opportunities for "aging in place", particularly among the notable seniors—or "baby- boom"—cohort; • Creating opportunities to reinforce population growth near existing employment / commercial / institutional / civic districts, such as the Downtown and Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs); • Allowing for the "gentle" densification of established, built-up neighbourhoods and introducing new populations to potential communities in decline; and, • Contributing to a more varied built form across the community, thereby creating opportunities to improve the overall quality of architecture and urban design City-wide. 4 Page 69 of 601 Parcel To arrive at the preferred outcomes identified by the City and its stakeholders, this study has involved a variety of background research and supporting analysis to inform the specific factors—or "pinch points"—that are most significantly influencing the feasibility of new housing development in Kitchener. This includes—but is not necessarily limited to—the following: Parcel �liu` S iuulll �RAIEGV COMP Baseline Market Conditions The market and economic realities of new real estate 41 development, particularly in low-rise neighbourhoods and suburban nodes/ corridors. Concept Development & Testing Other market / economic and financial feasibility -related testing of prototypical building designs / concepts representative of desired missing middle and mid -rise housing forms. Incentives Identification The magnitude and nature of required incentive or subsidy programs to advance municipal strategic objectives relating to e the provision of more affordable and/or "missing middle" housing typologies. Other Recommendations The identification of possible efficiencies and/or other process - related improvements for the City of Kitchener, based on an "outside looking in" lens combined with inspiration from other jurisdictions. 5 Page 70 of 601 Parcel 1.2 Study Parameters It is important to clearly articulate at the outset of this reporting the core objectives—and preferred outcomes— of the City of Kitchener in undertaking this work. The following provides a high-level overview as to some of the basic parameters of our study, including clarity as to some of the nuances among and between "missing middle" vs. "affordable" housing types, as well as an introduction to the complete range of building typologies considered as part of our supporting research program. For the purposes of this study, diversity relates to how varied—or not—the supply of local housing is within a given community and generally focuses on the physical features of residential buildings and/or dwelling units. This not only includes capturing diversity across common characteristics such as total floor area, number of bedrooms and/or unit type, but also more categorical differences in building typologies (i.e., spanning the full spectrum of housing typologies: from low-density single -detached dwellings to the highest density apartment towers). Objective: Improve the diversity of housing across the City of Kitchener, by enabling a more complete mix of low, medium and high-density residential building forms as part of new real estate projects. Although indirectly influencing diversity and "choice", as explored above, affordability has been referred to more explicitly in the context of pricing for the purposes of this study (i.e., the "dollars and cents" of housing, as an important determinant of the ability of households to reasonably pay for housing, from a financial perspective). While this concept is relatively straight -forward in principle, it can often be complicated by inconsistent definitions and unique price thresholds established across different jurisdictions and/or levels of government. Objective: Increase the delivery of affordable housing across Kitchener through new development, which caters to households of all income levels. 6 Page 71 of 601 Parcel One of the key factors affecting housing affordability is the inherent imbalance between demand and supply within a given community, especially in primary and secondary urban population centres such as Kitchener that are experiencing the highest levels of population growth. While simultaneously leveraging the economic development and city -building benefits available via new growth and development, enabling new housing supply—of any kind— can represent an important element of improving affordability for residents (i.e., relying on the basic economic principles of pricing in response to a "shock" to supply). Objective: Increase the total supply of housing City-wide, which can have indirect benefits to pricing (i.e., including both market -rate and affordable housing units through new development). This study has also considered the extent to which housing and population growth can be reasonably accommodated across various housing typologies within both Central and Suburban neighbourhood contexts. As it relates to missing middle and affordable housing specifically, locational considerations can also play an important role in so far as basic geographic characteristics can materially prohibit—or enable—the growth of preferred housing types. For example: • Are there currently development sites available in the right size and configurations necessary to support certain preferred typologies? • Do price levels within low -performing submarkets support development of new -build housing that is financially feasible? • Is there an opportunity to leverage higher -performing submarkets to deliver additional affordable housing as part of new mixed -income communities? Objective: Increase the supply of housing across a variety of different locational / neighbourhood contexts, including both Central and Suburban areas. 7 Page 72 of 601 Parcel Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act (2022) Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 is new provincial legislation that makes significant changes to the land use planning process, including the provision of affordable and attainable housing, as well as other as -of -right permissions for relatively small-scale, infill type housing commensurate with common definitions of missing middle housing. The impact of the Bill on specific elements of the analysis are highlighted in the relevant sections throughout the report, including as -of -right financial, policy, and process considerations and new definitions of affordable and attainable housing. The Complete Spectrum Building upon the foregoing concept of housing diversity—and to appropriately reflect natural market -led variations in residential "product type" across different locational contexts—a complete spectrum of housing typologies has been identified for consideration as part of this study. As summarized below, this includes eight (8) distinct housing typologies, generally ranging in order from lowest to highest density. Additionally, selected sub -categories have also been identified—as denoted by colour—to reflect obvious groupings based on common development formats (e.g., low-rise and mid -rise apartments). 8 Page 73 of 601 Parcel The Complete Spectrum of Housing Typologies ui.lww [:wsMm. II. 4........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... re ui.UGH i.)rMM" II Accessoryor "Additional" Dwelling Units (ADUs), Vertically or horizontally Grade -,elated housing/ representing the Street -fronting townhouses integrated townhouse Multi-plex apartment Standalone apartment Standalone apartment Standalone apartment or "row" housing, including buildings, typically buildings, typically less than 4- buildings typically between 4 buildings typically greater singladetached houses Introduction of "net " developments with multiple thosewith no backyards containing 8 or fewer units, storeys in height .^^ and 8 storeys in height."' than 8smreysin height"" tin single- unitto existing singles units. detached properties- cI r, ,, d/ , sr ,,,,,. _ ,.i. �, I, lii .- °_w�ur�+ 8,�a ;i+& ( i, Nh�," i 8 8 a )I_iilIII aIdFr.i.`IiI)(i� w.9l,,intIIw+ 1 Iq � ! � (laps&� �I ,w �,r� }�1 A� ,,„s,n ��ni �i ul l , l l„ � �� d� I ¢h. Identified Sub -Categories The Extremes: Low -Density Singles and High -Density Apartments As denoted with shades of girey, the far ends of the typology spectrum are characterized by the extremes of high- density (apartmentsd typology E) and low-density (single family housingd typology A), which account for the majority of the existing housing stock in Kitchener, including newer developments that have either been recently constructed, are under construction, or are proposed to enter the market in the near future. Although neither of these typologies have represented the core focus of this study, they have nonetheless helped to establish an important baseline in identifying what currently "works” in the Kitchener context, based on prevailing market conditions. In the case of affordable housing, however, it is also worth noting that high density residential development can often play a key role in generating the scale of development necessary whereby there can be opportunities to offset—or "subsidize"—lower-revenue generating uses with the typical "highest and best use": market residential. 9 Page 74 of 601 Parcel The "Missing Middle" Similar to differing interpretations as to what can—or should—qualify as "affordable" housing, there is equivalent discrepancy and lack of consensus around which of the specific sub -components of the broader housing typology spectrum constitute "missing middle" housing. For the purposes of this study, and recognizing the unique context of the Kitchener market, we have defined missing middle housing as encompassing all typologies from C1 (Towns) through D2 (Mid -Rise), as denoted in shades of IE,flI,)),e and duu°o in. This effectively includes all vertically and horizontally integrated forms of housing in a medium -density format. The Missing "Little" Often identified as either a direct sub -category of—or companion to—missing middle housing, we have also identified two typologies that we believe best capture the essence of the missing "little". Namely, this includes two important forms of relatively small-scale, infill housing that can be effectively integrated in existing neighbourhood contexts comprised predominantly of single-family housing: • Plexes (C3) - a slightly less dense form of apartment development—including triplexes, fourplexes / other multiplexes—capable of matching the overall height, scale and "feel" of neighbouring properties, typically on just one or two contiguous residential lots; and, • ADUs (B) - accessory or "additional" dwelling units, such as standalone laneway / garden suites or integrated units such as basement apartments or rear/side additions, as denoted in urd. 10 Page 75 of 601 Parcel The Complete Spectrum of Housing Typologies + "Missing Middle" Identification "MISSING MIDDLE" III IllwIII)H11!1;III 1'll ^iIIIUGHIIIWPUI;IIII"Pf''' * "MISSING LITTLE" * "MISSING LITTLE" Accessoryor "Additional" Dwelling Units (ADUs), Vertically or horizontally Gra, lated h ousn / g r preser Tng the e Streetfro tng townhotses Integrated townhouse M Iti-plexapartment Standalo apa tment Standalo reapartinent Standalone apartment introd-tion or row hous g clud- )g b llIbI gs typically bindings, typically less hi 4- bu ldingstypleelly between 4 bu ldings typically greater single detached houses of a net new developments with m lTple thosewth no backyards entaining 8 or fewer i. nits. storeys height ^^ and 8 storeys in height"' than 8storeysin he ght."" unittoexisting sglm in units detached properties. °_0 uc I'r)r<:(,I The City of Kitchener defines housing affordability as the least expensive of housing that does not exceed 30% of gross annual household income or housing that is at or below average prices or rents. This definition includes both an income -based measure of affordability (i.e., tied to what specific households can afford) and a market-based measure of affordability (i.e., a benchmark against current market conditions and pricing). This is consistent with both the definition of affordability in the Region of Waterloo Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). 11 Page 76 of 601 Fio,fa,.aae i.,"I. City of Kitchener Definitions of Housing Affordability Parcel Ihi_ least q) ra,ar,eof:� Purchase price results in annual accommodation Rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual In , rnw^ costs which do not exceed 30% of gross household income for low- and moderate- 4�'d annual household income for low- and income households'` moderate -income households'` �!a a,S afio/(.L, wil/'i ii o r r irr U," fOvlwle" 60 % of no �.�rnc n faawest't 09(1/�z thc ino")n e r.1L.��r�7uf �.>I"i �e a& Ilta�a�ll dllaaula�aWflla��fa, Fps EM N f art: t The purchase price i s at least 10% below the Rent is at or below the average market rent &, a y f average purchase price of a resale unit in the (AMR) of a unit in the regional market area regional market area ;,diir�:� , ) r 6i, L<+�+:1I ra i"i�i;�d Pik, Hi,,rioa OhV 1:a,iI @'8,�irr C 0"1^''1; Based on these definitions, in 2021, ownership housing in Kitchener is considered affordable if it costs $385,500 or less (income -based) and rental housing is considered affordable if it costs $1,300 per month or less (market- based ). °`3 ' I cii, , rnp:7aami7o co; Ir �i+�"", "6, 3 1' k) is � , i �n w+l rJIo� rrI,r L, Iui,,a'an rI, rridi ray n I au�::9 g r1 0 "c, I nI, � 'ad nrrLd6:�Ie hr ir¢ � a 1 ItlB4`,:;oI" I,,�,ISc,8arIaI as `I - I B a ", 12 Page 77 of 601 Parcel As of 2021, the market-based affordable housing price of approximately $576,300 is affordable to households in the 901h percentile of income distribution. Rental housing fares slightly better with an average market rent of $1,307 being affordable to households in the 60th percentile of income distribution and higher. In dollar amounts, a household has to earn $1 @9,000 or greater per year for the average ownership price to be considered affordable and $58,900 or greater per year for average rent to be considered affordable. It is important to note that average rents and prices in the market-based measure of affordability are calculated using all housing stock, including older ownership units and rental units under rent control, both of which command lower prices and rents than units currently entering the market. As such, "affordable" often understates current market realities. This is true in Kitchener, where an affordable house price is approximately $576,000, yet the average price of a new construction house is $792,900'`. Likewise, affordable rent is calculated at $1,307 per month, yet average asking rents are $1,600`. Overall, this points to greater affordability challenges than the definition of "affordable" suggests, particularly for residents looking for housing compared to those who are securely housed. Li �,. we "1,5 Housing Affordability in Kitchener by Income Percentile (2021) Ownership Rental $640,386 $576,347 $1,307 10th Percentile $26,200 $96,400 X X $15,700 --------------- $390 80th Percentile 20th Percentile $41,900 $154,100 X X $23,800 $600 $199,000 30th Percentile $56,100 $206,200 X X $32,000 $800 40th Percentile $71,100 $261,600 X X $40,400 $1,010 50th Percentile $87,200 $320,800 X X $49,200 $1,230 60th Percentile $104,800 $385,500 X X $58,900 $1,470 1/ 70th Percentile $125,600 $462,100 X X $70,700 $1,770 80th Percentile $153,600 $565,100 X X $86,200 $2,160 90th Percentile $199,000 $732,100 V 1( $109,900 $2,750 1 lnasff urrl Afle curd' 1 v 7& ha J.,1;fI alV:aw',hifwla+:,a�'drdvliRJNN (nIh'CriwIiI 1>N,,a�I I()aid,i� l,,, IkJa:I,aN,""floIrr,'dWdu I ua�Ii'I(l( Hv'1/-\H'I. 0�11,1r 16 i I �, Jurpho ,,af,.XP y 0)1 rw rr!,^p,�a+ "r al<:ai7��lfrna I 13 Page 78 of 601 Parcel Note: Bill 23 Affordable and Attainable Definitions The recently passed Bill 23 now defines "affordable" as a unit whose rent or price is no greater than 80% of average market rent or average purchase price, depending on whether the unit is rental or ownership. While the previous definition of affordable considered both income- and market-based measures of affordability, this new definition is purely market-based. Bill 23 also introduces the concept of attainable housing that falls between affordable and full market prices. Initial legislation defines attainable as an ownership unit that is not an affordable unit. In other words, attainable housing is ownership housing that costs more than 80% of the average purchase price. It is expected this definition will be further refined. I aqua e I ^'w Comparison of Affordability Definitions to Market -Based Prices/Rents Ownership City of Kitchener/PPS Bill 23 $640,386 $576,347 $512,309 $792,713 Rental City of Kitchener/PPS Bill 23 $1,307 $1,046 $1,567 +�jI„o r, , I )� ';, , k, i �A _¢? I¢ 8` 17k iii'A 0,1J aIr IgHJ 8 L"I�,JR ( hdeo Hi H ” k�J skllN1:n I, xlI1: N1 f ' (I;III 14 Page 79 of 601 Parcel 1.3 Assumptions & Limitations When considering the type of financial feasibility modelling that has been undertaken for this study—which is not specific to any one site and/or landowner(s)—it is important to identify the key assumptions and limitations inherent to this more conceptual approach. Furthermore, consistent with other financial analyses focused on policy -level observations, we note that the modelling presented herein should not be taken as a conclusive nor definitive representation of financial feasibility, or lack thereof, for individual properties. Rather, it is intended to provide a more general and preliminary understanding as to the relative feasibility of conceptual developments and prototypical building designs, as well as to provide a more general indication as to the key drivers of financial performance when developing new missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener. The following provides a detailed summary of the key assumptions that must be understood as limitations to the analysis undertaken as part of this assignment. • The prototypical development concepts established for testing as part of our assessment have been developed by members of Smart Density, in direct collaboration with staff from the City of Kitchener. They are not intended to be indicative of any specific property nor landholdings within the City of Kitchener, but rather are characteristic of the types of development that could ultimately prevail on typical properties within the community, across all typologies. • The preliminary development concepts established for each typology are hypothetical only, based on a combination of: (i) the general nature, scale and density of development being contemplated across the City historically; (ii) recent market-based precedents; and, (iii) the type of new buildings that are best situated to advance broader city -building and housing -specific objectives. Although as -of -right permissions have been considered, Smart Density has taken a design -first approach to the missing middle typologies which pushes the boundaries on some elements (e.g., parking and right-of-way requirements), which may require the City to update its Official Plan and/or Zoning by-law, or the future developer to apply for an amendment. • Recognizing that each property and landowner will have different perspectives and requirements as it relates to financial feasibility in the "real world", we have attempted to capture the full range of possible 15 Page 80 of 601 Parcel outcomes within the City of Kitchener through related sensitivity analyses, which adjust selected input assumptions (including to reflect nuances across different pre -defined policy areas and geographies within the City). The development concepts established by Smart Density have served as a critical baseline to this portion of our analysis. • Notwithstanding the preliminary and conceptual nature of the development concepts considered in this study—as well as the relatively limited statistical detail available at this early stage of the planning process— we have adopted a relatively detailed discounted cash flow approach to assess the financial feasibility of developing new missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener. As explored in more detail herein, this is generally a more advanced type of financial feasibility testing than is typically employed for other policy - level exercises and/or equivalent early-stage, conceptual development scoping. Although we felt this more detailed approach was necessary for accurate results, it has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. • Our analysis is limited to evaluating the feasibility of the development concepts being constructed in isolation, including articulation of distinct policy areas identified within the City (e.g., Central vs. Suburban contexts, etc.). As such, no site-specific municipal infrastructure costs to be borne by developers have been incorporated into our analysis. These costs could represent an additional construction cost when advancing actual development on a given site, which we have assumed will be determined based on supplementary technical engineering work, site and block planning, as well as additional discussions with City of Kitchener staff as part of more site-specific applications. • The financial analyses included in this report have been undertaken as more of theoretical exercise only and do not necessarily constitute advice to proceed with the specific development concepts identified. Rather, our financial analyses are intended to help determine whether the concepts—and related incentives and/or policy mechanisms—appear to be promising at first glance and are therefore worthy of further investigation. A more detailed and comprehensive development proEforma analysis will ultimately be required by the owners/operators of individual properties across the City to consider the actual costing, phasing and refinement of any new site-specific development plans before proceeding with such an endeavour (including determination of the optimal building typology and/or affordable housing delivery). • Similarly, the findings presented as part of our analysis do not account for the unique financial expectations, strategic positioning and/or development capacities of current or future owners of real property in the community. As such, although each project may demonstrate a positive or negative preliminary finding as it relates to financial viability, it does not necessarily assert that such a finding—nor the related assumptions incorporated into the analysis—will ultimately be consistent with the perspectives or parallel analyses of each individual landowner across the City. Ultimately, it is those organizations who will 16 Page 81 of 601 Parcel establish internal financial thresholds, development parameters and conditions which implicate the scope and scale of any new developments proposed moving forward. Approach: Discounted Cash Flow Analysis Historically, most policy -based financial analyses prepared on behalf of public sector organizations like the City of Kitchener are structured around a more simplified Residual Land Value (RLV) approach. Although Parcel regularly relies upon this approach in the right context, these financial assessments generally are not equivalent to the more detailed and traditional prodorma financial analyses that are typical of most individual real estate development projects (i.e., as prepared by private sector participants, such as developers, property managers and other real estate investors). Namely, RLV assessments are often simplified to the identification of a reasonable "break-even" point that could yield a reasonable return on investment to the owners of a given development site while also maintaining (or enhancing)the value of their existing real estate assets. Based on the more extensive and nuanced scope of this study, however, we felt that it was necessary to complete a more rigorous Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis. As described in more detail herein, this type of analysis is capable of more appropriately capturing: (a) the time -value of money; (b) the full timeline of development projects; (c) the nuances of operating rental buildings over many years; as well as, (d) a more comprehensive subset of common risk/return metrics. Overall, although the analysis presented in this report has continued to be relied upon as more of a comparative tool than an explicit predictor of investment returns (i.e., all the same as a more simplified RLV), the DCF approach has allowed us to prepare a more defensible and flexible analysis that responds to the unique objectives of this study. • The various other statistical inputs relied upon in our analysis are considered sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this conceptual analysis. These statistical sources—including available municipal information, datasets and previous reporting, as well as third -party industry data—have ultimately informed a number of the key underlying assumptions and inputs utilized in our analysis. 17 Page 82 of 601 Parcel • It is assumed that a reasonable degree of economic stability will prevail in the Province of Ontario, and specifically in the context of the City of Kitchener market, over the course of the development planning horizon identified in this study. • It is important to recognize that the lingering effects of the COVID-1& pandemic will continue to result in a significant amount of uncertainty as it relates to current and potential future market conditions. At the time of reporting, there is not a complete understanding of the potential longer-term implications of the pandemic on economic conditions nor real estate development patterns across the City of Kitchener and beyond. • References to the Canadian dollar in this report generally reflect its 2023 value, including the range of supporting statistical inputs and research that have informed our baseline financial assumptions. Additional adjustments have also been made to reflect growth in costsd revenues for future periods, where applicable. Note: Financial Implications of Bill 23 The financial implications of Bill 23 on missing middle and affordable housing development (e.g., removal or reduction of development charges) are considered in the feasibility analysis based on in force regulations as of January 2023. In the event that material changes occur that could influence the foregoing assumptions, the analysis, research findings and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed or updated, accordingly. 18 Page 83 of 601 Key Findings • The demographic profile of Kitchener— exhibiting below average incomes and an above average proportion of middle- aged households—will drive demand for missing middle housing. • The South-West neighbourhood, as defined by CMHC, has accommodated approximately half of all new housing supply in Kitchener since 2016, primarily through low-density greenfield development. • Accordingly, just over 50% of housing stock city-wide continues to comprise relatively low-density residential typologies (singles and semis). Parcel • Public and private sector priorities are more aligned than different in a shared desire to increase the supply of housing in Kitchener. • The City of Kitchener already uses several Financial, Process and Policy incentives to support missing middle and affordable housing, but there are additional opportunities that can be explored. 19 Page 84 of 601 Parcel 2A Market Context Based on our review of historical demographic information, development trends and real estate market statistics for Kitchener, the following provides a summary of some key observations as it relates to the current—and potential future—provision of both missing middle and affordable housing. South-West Growth Middle -Aged Segment Prevalence of Singles & Semis Popularity of ADUs Diversity & Intensification Land Pricing Convergence Kitchener's South-West neighbourhood has grown significantly, accommodating approximately half of new supply since 2016. Below average incomese+- above average proportion of middle-aged householdse= demand for "missing middle" housing. Despite new apartment developments across the City, nearly two thirds of the local housing stock continues to comprise of relatively low density residential formats. There has been a sharp increase in Accessory / Additional Dwelling Units ("ADUs") over the last few years, including a correlation with the development of new singles/semis highlighted above. Most of these ADUs have been "duplexes" (see page 69 for detail). Diversification of housing through future intensification will be important to both high growth areas, as well as existing areas in population decline. There has been a convergence in pricing for both land (among mid and low-rise sites)c+ residential floor area (among mid -rise and high-rise product types). 20 Page 85 of 601 Parcel We estimate that Kitchener is currently home to 277,290 residents (as of 2022). A higher proportion of these residents are "middle-aged" relative to the provincial distribution. Figure 2A illustrates the population across six neighbourhoods based on the "Neighbourhood Zones" that comprise the City of Kitchener, as defined by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), albeit renamed to be consistent with Kitchener conventions. These neighbourhood delineations were chosen because they are aligned to the City's Census Tract boundaries as CMHC is a key data source for housing statistics in Ontario. Fi'�!, a.,na`c I Kitchener CMHC Neighbourhood Zones + Estimated 2022 Population f he Cm 11:y and 0h e II? O q 011 an,n ire. iii„0,,,,, hair u(r Lir pr) II-�o��ll-�eir I�-mir�a�pzmoirV� oris of you. inn p���du��Iks andir���fdcflc nor erl VM�oc>rruur lle,�;o��irirullr�rr�rr�9 pry 0)oIllmlllfl."1111111]!''iAS 16,470 residents o'w %00000' 31 gum t 4100 41111001111 1114Y. AsEAsr 't t 2II 1IL,i5,890 residents 2736.0 residents 111110111111 eats 40 l 3060 tes'd t 98 s " u” il. t5 mmm .10 aer' 30�pp m ciurc, [rcn& ios don �Idw icsConid, 1b28 "�MIJ ,Md+"iiHI�'�:r.^wiapl ikms loa,. Ou.. l� III^"'w,:Es..r 110,210 residents 21 Page 86 of 601 Parcel As illustrated in Figure 2.2, the South-West neighbourhood has accommodated more than half of Kitchener's growth since 2016, while only b% has been accommodated in the Central neighbourhood. I a"';"? a..a a e 2 2 Population Growth by Neighbourhood (2016 — 2021) M North-West 13% suith 14 Centra I West North-East 4% West % ciurc� P, it p,bt -d odephIv rte,tas<„C"I nd,1 1181 rI;1:I ' I C �I,c At an even more granular level, the City's 10 -year population growth (or decline) patterns have not been uniform across Census Tracts (CT's), as illustrated in Figure 2.3. CT's with older, more mature housing stock experienced less population growth (or even decline) over this period. Future intensification in these areas could change this trend and make better use of existing community infrastructure. High growth areas will also need a diverse housing stock as their populations continue to grow and change. 22 Page 87 of 601 F i q ue 3 10 -Year Population Growth / Decline by Census Tract 1111/F�11 —203 Parcel 23 Page 88 of 601 Parcel Average household incomes across Kitchener are below the provincial average. This has been the case over the past two censuses and there has been virtually no change to the household income relationships among the neighbourhoods. Unsurprising, the South-West neighbourhood with the newest housing stock and largest average household sizes is closest to the provincial average. F io a„� ". i. Average Household Income Avg ull c:olllne TY, Yf}tJ.f,fNa ` 971856 _17% $94,657 81 S 61,ocui d0,000 )0'000 .1 l`UI Q'U16 I^il fu iir:I OoA� l �nn.iUi I Vo (..:( VJ A :.i I`lodh Ii, d INuO'h " 3i f ri'� I al Yc' I Ali ;,dLos,! I:I cm , 7lls(.,,,_',yin id,i nil,+,I ^ PwA.js irid Ihu CklI ;_: hccx k. As reported in the 2021 Census, nearly half (48%) of dwellings across Kitchener were single -detached and approximately two-thirds (bb%) were low-densityer ground -related housing. 24 Page 89 of 601 Parcel Kitchener Housing Stock (2021) 5,420 unIts r, s ,yl ; 47, 0,,wt,. r's,., Sours I' nod, hom�d mOw n hjN''Do_,ii t `;nth iV 5 a¢ei��. Figure 2.6 illustrates an increase in apartment units in all neighbourhoods butthe South -East overthe pastthree Census: • Interestingly, the suburban South-West neighbourhood was home to 850 more apartment units than the Central neighbourhood as of the 2021 Census. • At the same time, three suburban neighbourhoods (South-West, South -East and North-East) all added single -detached dwellings over the years while the others experienced a slight decline over the same period. 25 Page 90 of 601 Fk)w�,e 2 6 Census Dwellings by Neighbourhood (2011 — 2021) Single -detached Semi-detached ,, 201 1 11111111112016 M2021 Parcel 12011 11111111112016 1111112021 Apartments 12011 11111111112016 1111112021 26 Page 91 of 601 Parcel As of 2022 across the Kitchener—Cambridge—Waterloo Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), CMHC estimates that there are more than 45,000 rental units, including both the primary (i.e., purpose-built rental buildings) and secondary (i.e., rental of condominium units) rental markets. More than half of the units in the primary rental market (57%) are located in Kitchener. Figure 2.7 illustrates that—while the rental supply has increased over the past eight years—condominium units have been responsible for a progressively larger portion of the rental supply over the years. Figure e r 7 Rental Units in Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA 45,063 43,25 43911 III ILII 40,765 40,446 ��� N 39,oza pgpg)I IIIII�IIIIII��I IIIII�IIIIIhII IIIIIII�II�III IIII °R°wn"'I:a° L°nn"k"w' 36,346 iill�lll 34,387 IIIIVui � IIII IIVIIIII mfuVGu F11 w. 111101 :no.. lln.uiHtIII i! ntalll � N"n a t.s 1115 "16 1117 1118 "1'9 "20 2.1 22 Recently, Statistics Canada began reporting on investor-owned" units as part of the Canadian Housing Statistics Program (CHSP). Based on this information, the investor category can include secondary residence owners, landlords, short-term rental owners, developers, for-profit businesses and speculators. As such, it is important to note that not all investor-owned units make their way to the secondary rental market. For example, CMHC estimates that there were 3,902 condominiums for rent in the secondary rental market across the CMA in 2020, however, the CHSP estimates that 9,375 condominium apartments were investor-owned in the same year. This does not necessarily suggest that those units were sitting empty, but more likely that they were secondary residences for the owners (e.g., students living in a property purchased by their parents). Based on the CHSP, some one -in -five units in Kitchener was classified as owned by an investor as of 2020. Figure 2.8 breaks down the more than 15,300 investor-owned units by typology. Unsurprisingly, approximately two thirds niii, ,fij� I cIfIu,,ncr,vvhi onc�o I+]I::,nI pfov-rfyI a ni,00d,aan�hi� piq io ry po1: o 911 i n 27 Page 92 of 601 Parcel of condominium apartments are investor-owned, though a surprising amount of single -detached and townhouses are owned by investors (i.e., totalling 7,216 units when combined, significantly more than the condominium apartments). Fi pw.,aa 1,8 Kitchener Units Owned by Investors (2020) 67% or 5,240 units 8% or 3,965 units 29% or 3,250 units _c,urco I`n A rYdsI6P `r pr ojr, t,y, v+I �` ILiI�ip n N)n& n o p :apo rh,� �cn�_�i ¢iaw J n od Ian m, w,I h,irrti ,did I 3, uh h I „ ,, Cho I pax The CHSP data also reveals the following, specific to the City of Kitchener: • Overall, approximately two thirds of investor-owned units in Kitchener are owned by individuals, with the balance owned by business and governments. • Between 83% and 85% of ground -oriented units (i.e., singles, semis and rows) are owned by individuals, whereas 68% of investor-owned condominium apartments are owned by business and government. • Focusing on units constructed since 2014, the trend of investor ownership is more prevalent in recently constructed units. This is especially evident in the ground -oriented typologies where investor ownership is higher in these units than the overall supply. Condominium apartments is the exception with 57% of the 1,255 condominium apartments built since 201EI owned by investors, compared to 67% of the total stock of condominium apartments across the City'. n q q�a,�)Y o a� qa h iii: I„�¢o r+ �,�, i�da,Y+ �Ir:,,, C „ r - �rrlr,,rn �� h "��rrr¢� ra, , � � P d H'vqu ���,�� n kai�_9Pa a h:�,r,�i�r,��i¢�:���¢ �I �� ����cr�oq�r �,�pM[� ai�o, I+ r'� d�., .,inei�onu a;��r��i¢ra iris° Y Il U du(I'fi P, c , :7vsrrn r�k;,r� ill ,f,o¢i;;lpe ,'4Hra, 28 Page 93 of 601 68% or 1, 155 u nits 0 Single Semi Row/Townhouse Condo Apt Property w/Multi Units _c,urco I`n A rYdsI6P `r pr ojr, t,y, v+I �` ILiI�ip n N)n& n o p :apo rh,� �cn�_�i ¢iaw J n od Ian m, w,I h,irrti ,did I 3, uh h I „ ,, Cho I pax The CHSP data also reveals the following, specific to the City of Kitchener: • Overall, approximately two thirds of investor-owned units in Kitchener are owned by individuals, with the balance owned by business and governments. • Between 83% and 85% of ground -oriented units (i.e., singles, semis and rows) are owned by individuals, whereas 68% of investor-owned condominium apartments are owned by business and government. • Focusing on units constructed since 2014, the trend of investor ownership is more prevalent in recently constructed units. This is especially evident in the ground -oriented typologies where investor ownership is higher in these units than the overall supply. Condominium apartments is the exception with 57% of the 1,255 condominium apartments built since 201EI owned by investors, compared to 67% of the total stock of condominium apartments across the City'. n q q�a,�)Y o a� qa h iii: I„�¢o r+ �,�, i�da,Y+ �Ir:,,, C „ r - �rrlr,,rn �� h "��rrr¢� ra, , � � P d H'vqu ���,�� n kai�_9Pa a h:�,r,�i�r,��i¢�:���¢ �I �� ����cr�oq�r �,�pM[� ai�o, I+ r'� d�., .,inei�onu a;��r��i¢ra iris° Y Il U du(I'fi P, c , :7vsrrn r�k;,r� ill ,f,o¢i;;lpe ,'4Hra, 28 Page 93 of 601 Parcel More than 7,000 households—or 8% of total households across the City—live in housing that is overcrowded Figure 2.9 details this variability across neighbourhoods, which points to a need not only for an expanded supply of housing, but also one with a different composition than is currently available. Interestingly, the South-West neighbourhood—which has the largest supply of ground -oriented houses (e.g., single -detached houses) and many of which have been constructed in recent years—has the second highest percentage of households living in "unsuitable"—specifically overcrowded—housing. This is likely due, in part, to expanding families outgrowing the number of bedrooms in their homes (at both ends of the age cohort extremes, with new children and aging parents /grandparents joining households). Households in Overcrowded Housing III ousellnolds 3,500 9% 3,000 2,940 2,500 2,000 1,475 1,080 720 500 225 8ai1:� &i <!,¢?„uLt nwhv dvrm'h.idasuld"r6Iu" ,::i, dui ;c I dIw hcwAmJ dwr I::, �om rovv"kr 1 o,� cordiny to dt hB I, I, nolC;:cculrowi" ),,S aai7 L�rd dha�id i h ih � he d,A, hn p has rrmwn h Nr" arc _w,v V tt Fw rar %" "_JmJI,"w dh :n A Ih hcu�,hiuld w, do riwd I"_i be liv�w q In n d � ;uip,7P��&,ir,:c.rwraiar.w"lut.l,•,¢r,ilw+^"�Ir &In�i &¢r �,�rr,�:,rn� 17 bcdrooMS,0, Cd8a:i„okr& Ba:,lrn +kaol'`Jit 29 Page 94 of 601 Parcel Similar to other communities across Ontario, renter households in the Region and the City struggle more with housing affordability than ownership households. I prl¢.. Households Spending More Than 30% of Household Income on Housing 113 "'i'i( Owners IIIIIIIIIIIII Reriters 24% 22 23% % 0ratario 2021 Waterloo Region 2021 Kitchener 2021 The building permit heatmap in Figure 2.11 illustrates where notable concentrations of net new units have been created over the past 10 years. The South-West and South -East neighbourhoods have accommodated the most net new units, consistent with the Census dwelling data. 30 Page 95 of 601 Parcel I iya,aE�, I 10 -year Building Permit Heat Map Si:�.art n I")r1!c I, h�y noq)�I 'II , I) K I :hIo nee q_,,� n 8o7 a S' jj anI:' � it ' T), Overlaying the building permits by type onto the heatmap reveals which unit types account for the bulk of the new supply. Figure 242 shows: • New single -detached and semi-detachedd duplex units have contributed to much of the 'heat' over the past 10 years. • Townhouses and stacked townhouses have also contributed some'heat', mostly in the South-West. • Smaller intensification projects (e.g., missing middle) and conversion of non-residential buildings to residential uses have primarily happened in the Central neighbourhood. • Interestingly, new apartment units have been constructed mostly in areas with less 'heat' overall, including a distribution across all neighbourhoodsd submarket areas. • Although apartment development has picked up in recent years, building permits reveal just 1,360 new apartment units have been added to the Central neighbourhood over the past 10 years. 31 Page 96 of 601 F i Y e. a , N 2 10 -year Building Permits by Type Sir Se Ro 1011111, Stacked Townhouse 2-5 Unit Intensification 6-10 Unit Intensification Conversion Apartment Parcel Sounc� !; Pon cl, bo::u�:j on C&',� �d Qchcnw opim do, 811u-nsdk'M,Jun mO�:, �,pru!,nn� lci o�xkih�g Iwcwn�s oo o4d unis LmO�; rqw,wnl ncv,cuw�firui: hon h,�Ihfiny:, 32 Page 97 of 601 Parcel Accessory—or "Additional"—Dwelling Units (ADUs) are not new to Kitchener. ADUs, most often in the form of basement apartments (known locally as "duplexes"), have risen rapidly in popularity in recent years. Notably, this includes a significant number of ADUs in newly constructed single and semi-detached houses (i.e., as illustrated by the correlation shown in the figure below). F iqq. w i 3 10 -year ADU Building Permits 1 New Single -detached .� 0 hNewSemi/DupWx Ate M 40, A m aa, Dr i' ncn mj ui in na! Yv A, 111.IIIi,Nu lts s i!Iince i101 I3 T)IIIn M I WARM 0 Y Wwrn ft",J& ,q @JJ ;roa n , II ti 384 u,uumhs S,omn I on cl, h y "od I ail 4 I` gIch"om r ok7 i 1: r '0 m ), 33 Page 98 of 601 Parcel Development land sales can also be an important indicator as to where future development will occur and in what form. In 2019 and 2020, many sales were in the Central and South-West neighbourhoods, whereas sales in 2022 to date have been in the more suburban areas of the city. Recent land transactions in the Central neighbourhood and in proximityto Highway 8 have garnered the highest prices per acre, likely in large part due to small sites to be developed with high density uses. Additionally, the development community continues to be active in the South-West, South -East and North-East Neighbourhoods, indicating that future growth will continue to be in these areas of the city. Recent Development Land Sales Recent Development Land Sales 10 2019 • •����� 2020 e 2021 or ' 010 uu,m • 2022 ruuuum � � 0001le "11, mm 10 . m •0000 m w�u �uuro' VIII u 1�" • iib • �IiI�IIIIY��19.0 141mu11. • 0 10000 • cul c I',af! I, o�d"c1:gt` n �r&',o, h''i°iIi7i, +k �iia 34 Page 99 of 601 Parcel We have also reviewed sales data for projects actively selling across the city as of Summer 2022. On average: • Single -detached houses were selling for just under $1 million to $2 million; • One stacked townhouse project was selling units for approximately $650,000; and • Apartments ranged from about $560,000 to just over $101 million. I a°.iana ,16 Actively Selling New Construction Projects (Summer 2022) i6,000,00ra $ 8,006,066 $ 6,006,066 High Density $ 8,964,984 Oil $ 0.,000,000 p, <,. r4v. '8 8,1189,268 L—Density 4 00 0,0 00$ 2,948,857 Milli uu . 2019 2020 2071 2022 I-Ve Z - curc I'ar o , ham,a is �,,ew „11, . ,kP� rlq,�� fca I irdil d by i s S� a h1o. ('1I�:y...wIIde $/ )c, 11 o"':' R...Na3tt tl s,i i1Q.1�i� i ,) 7 -)EA vcM,MI 111-Ir11E� ;.9itu. irn and 1o,,v...d Ir s„li .y pirq,-)c� � ocs )o�fte.luouul vvithfin Cl°w svlunne sunlllEjdiviosliooiil,°uu ...) 35 Page 100 of 601 Parcel It is also important to consider the pricing of "resale" houses relative to new -construction houses. New -construction houses generally command a premium over resale houses and this dynamic is also at play in the Kitchener market, with the exception of a brief period between September 2021 and May 2022 where resale prices were comparable to new -construction pricing. Relative parity between resale and new construction, especially given the subsequent decline in resale prices to May 2022 is a likely indicator that the resale market was overheated during that time. :j a. a I o^'') Average Resale House Prices by Type 11me9 Il1:1Hvi,1 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $ Single Semi Town Condo I~~eceint iorrte o est irfizl.e Ilr�il<es have a cjr,led 111r�e ha',BAr;aing rna irket ar,ross uH4 lyhbd;DIG',1yptiss, however, r, 11'iw1 d06'"Slrh't vVe,ce;",ai it yams Vd%St(., inn oiiiitga6g4"':" rrO nay iPu wap:::, M1ii'V" IIj iiij')J ' u bra �'S" jr"Jjr ?4„ _ f:P fJ• Y..:J ..... .._ N en ¢'+1 °;1' >.f} trr •CF h^- f•+. C.h U• m• Y..:J ,.-.. i MI Resale Resale New Construction (June 2021) (June 2022) (July 2022) $ 921,000 $ 864,000 $ 1,256,000 $ 649,000 $ 661,000 $ - $ 592,000 $ 615,000 $ 718,000 $ 445,000 $ 468,000 $ 572,000 So�un r: �I,i,, +�:l oOw K u � cher VJ �turI o, , `tiSso,:J,)O n ,:,I I', ,)I�c,w', i�id Pdtu n I I 36 Page 101 of 601 Parcel 2.2 Stakeholder Perceptions As part of a joint effort by Parcel and StrategyCorp, our team conducted a series of research interviews" with two key stakeholder groups as part of this study. The purpose of this engagement was to solicit more direct, on -the - ground feedback regarding the delivery of missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener, highlighting the duality of two distinct vantage points: • The "Private Sector Perspective", as represented via discussions with members of the local development community in Kitchener; and, • The "Public Sector Perspective", as represented via discussions with municipal staff at the City of Kitchener and Region of Waterloo. The following details the key themes that emerged from our research, highlighting important differences and areas of commonality across both public and private sector perspectives. Theme #1: Defining the Missing Middle • Developers had varying views and definitions of "missing middle" housing related to typology, type of occupants (families vs. couples vs. singles) and price. These varying definitions reflect the importance of developing a common—and consistent—understanding of what missing middle housing denotes. • Most interviewees defined missing middle housing as a building typology inclusive of garden and laneway suites, plexes, and multi -unit buildings between four (4) and ten (10) storeys. ' s„�,w,i �o; i P :w )n�Ir^,)ovv �i����„ � �,¢Il� �o” pari 0I��'::,:16,,epI'�' >,�, ,dww�P�r irr�a w ,i �.n t, e °��wwGn 71b�,r � ��.u+ ,������� d. � �, � ,�,r ." rre�w�l � � v�rt�y p � rew_il+�:n Ira �I ¢ irr� Io w u I ,)Ih Inas ru'a+ ",00S VVI pr:vv ° ,'vidq I pIiIne)�I, :lui. w1I�u wiry_, I:h� ne Ugia,��r � iI01c [,ar jr c 1, I� � 1N r; r� „o iai, }ri���Iw� ia4 rr�,, �lw,, a ���kin ,I P L ins NeB � �^� I n ,rd,,onco 0� Iho wrII r,i q'vl to wntHrA,rvvn Hi I_, � o I hw ,,Iw VIA u+ pJom )Iw0wvt+,"wlh o,lO o, a � unnpdnhd pw'-'IcIs wri qI'I �� k; cha n� morka1 ,aa vw++dI .w, %rr,veI-ipor; ,fl11 O„p�dOs �, irb irnrw:, ino8 nr I� I I c hUwo VI+J ,:oLd' w ! _4 q 110 Ni chornc,r'tw'V d o r _,( I.n, yic,n Sri d I w ins ,,n ,.I wl Iu ywn h„rr candiw9,li n+ owr, w, w�, +ho r, -sults A dhl,cwrsnsha +! heon Ik 1pr s1¢k dl,;:f�, bawd i& ;md w�i�::,ra��,�rari w��:�, uvh =w „saw/. 37 Page 102 of 601 Parcel • Others felt missing middle constituted ground -related housing large enough to house families (2- to 3+ - bedrooms), namely townhouses and small multi -unit buildings. • Some interviewees defined missing middle based on price - specifically, housing that is affordable to middle decile income brackets regardless of typology. • It was noted that missing middle built forms are not necessarily commensurate with missing middle price point, leading to an inherent disconnect. Theme #2: Unit Sizes / Mix • Most developers are providing 1- and 2 -bedroom apartment units based on current market conditions (demand) and financial viability characteristics (1eand 2 -bedroom units do not apply to singles, semis, and towns) • Developers were not opposed to providing 3 -bedroom units in principle, however, there is currently little demand for them given their resulting cost (price point). Many felt that households looking for a 3 -bedroom unit would prefer to live in ground -oriented housing than mid- or high-rise buildings at an equivalent sales price (and/or rental rate). • The economics of providing 3 -bedroom units is also challenging. For example, construction costs for a 3 - bedroom unit are similar to two 1 -bedroom units, but revenues for two 1 -bedroom units are higher. Theme #3: Staff / Council Perspective on Development • Several developers mentioned the need to challenge the perception among staff and Council as to the extent of developer profit from residential projects. It was noted that while profit margins may appear large, certain bare minimum margins are required to demonstrate project viability, and ultimately secure financing. • It was noted that staff often fail to consider the financial implications of their comments on applications. For example, requiring underground parking or commercial uses at grade can add significant costs to a development that directly affects its financial viability. • Council and staff education on development economics was seen as a key method of addressing challenges relating to supplying missing middle and affordable housing. 38 Page 103 of 601 Parcel Theme #4: Incentives • Waiving, reducing, or deferring fees was generally seen as one of the best ways to improve affordability while maintaining financial viability. Specific fees cited included development charges and parkland dedication. Interviewees were positive about the City of Kitchener policy of allowing deferred development changes but noted that removing interest payments on these deferrals would also help to increase viability. • An expedited approvals process would assist with affordability by reducing the carrying costs of financing during the approvals and construction process. • Introducing a "sliding scale" for incentives that are currently more binary or "black and white" would help with affordability. For example, developments offering 80% average market rents are eligible for grants, whereas developments offering 85% average market rent are ineligible even though they are offering below market rents. • Interviewees also highlighted that incentives are needed to make these types of projects viable, not to increase developer profit, and the importance of affordability that is incentivized, not punitive. Note: Timing of Bill 23 Announcements Based on the timing of our interviews at the outset of our study process, we note that the majority of the research conducted as part of this process was completed in advance of recent announcements by the Province of Ontario relating to Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act 2022). As such, the findings presented in this section should be reviewed in light of these changes and any key takeaways relating to relevant policyd process improvements have been adjusted accordingly in the remainder of this report. Theme #5: Challenges & Opportunities Interviewees were specifically asked about challenges and opportunities associated with providing missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener. Challenges • Rising municipal fees are being passed on to the end consumer, further eroding affordability. 39 Page 104 of 601 Parcel • There is a lack of clarity around the definition of "affordability". Definitions do not align across policy and funding programs, causing confusion about expectations and requirements for funding. • The planning approvals process is seen as arduous, combative, and restrictive. It is perceived to be slow and exacerbated by municipal comments that are too prescriptive. • Finding parcels that are zoned for missing middle housing is difficult without a rezoning or Official Plan amendment, both of which add cost and time to the approvals process. It is important to provide permissions for missing middle typologies as -of -right. Opportunities Update the zoning by-law to provide as -of -right permissions for missing middle housing typologies. These changes allow proponents to proceed directly to site plan approval or building permit saving both time and money in the development process. • Changes to the building code that now allow for combustible construction make missing middle housing more appealing to build. However, it is important that building examiners are educated about specific building materials and processes, namely cross -laminated timber and panelization, such that the approvals process is not unduly delayed. This is particularly important for garden and laneway suites, which are a newer and less understood housing typology. • Designated Greenfield Areas (DGA) provide a good opportunity for missing middle housing because the zoning by-law is developed along with the community, thereby reducing opportunities for NIMBYism. • Offer underused or vacant municipal properties/lands suitable for housing suitability to proponents at low or no cost. Other • Interviewees felt affordability challenges are due to lack of housing supply in light of a growing population and constrained land supply. Increasing supply was therefore seen as the best way to increase affordability as opposed to limiting demand. • Many interviewees acknowledged that making changes to support missing middle and more affordable housing will require both political will and courage. They encourage the municipality to be bold. 40 Page 105 of 601 Parcel Theme #1: Affordable Housing Priorities • Interviewees highlighted that the presence of housing typologies beyond the common "extremes" will be critical to the City's long-term prosperity, as an increasingly diverse group of people seek to live and work in Kitchener. • Interviewees emphasized that affordable housing is a priority for Council, staff, and community members. • In keeping with this priority, participants highlighted specific ways in which the City of Kitchener has already begun to support missing middle housing typologies to date, including: - As -of -right permissions for ADUs and three units on all serviced residential lots through new Zoning By-law 2019-051; -- Housing for All (2020) housing strategy; - Fee deferrals and exemptions for eligible projects; - Process and policy efficiencies; Make it Kitchener 2.0 and its emphasis on affordable and attainable housing; and, -- Backyard home design competition. Theme #2: Spectrum of Housing Needs • Young professionals, seniors looking to downsize, and those experiencing homelessness who need emergency and transitional houses (especially in the downtown area) were seen as some of the groups that require additional housing options. • Missing middle housing types that gently intensify growing communities (i.e., basement units, second units, duplexes, triplexes, etc.) and provide more diverse ownership and rental stock will help to meet a greater variety of housing needs. • Interviewees also noted more deeply affordable and/or subsidized housing (i.e., affordable ownership, rent -geared -to -income, supportive housing) across all typologies is required to help those priced out of the current housing market. 41 Page 106 of 601 Parcel Theme #3: Contributing Factors Interviewees identified a number of factors they believe impact, either positively or negatively, the ability oft he City to enable the development of missing middle and affordable housing. "Making the Pro Forma Work" • Interviewees acknowledged the negative impact missing middle typologies and affordable units can have on a project profitability and financing such that the project can become unviable. • Rising land values, construction costs and labour costs favour higher -density developments to make it more likely to achieve a desired and/or necessary return on investment. Interviewees noted that higher -density development has a place in addressing the City's affordable housing needs but does not directly support missing middle or mid -rise typologies. It was also noted that construction and labour costs are outside of the control of the City. • Development fees such as planning applications, development charges, and permits also contribute to the cost of development, however the City noted it currently has fee exemptions for certain affordable housing projects to improve financial viability. Proposed changes to development fees introduced by Bill 23 are expected to further relax the fee burden on the development industry. • Interviewees noted that until affordable housing programs (rental and ownership) result in comparable returns to market housing typologies, interest and feasibility to construct these types of projects will continue to be limited. Evolving Public Policy Environment • Interviewees acknowledged that the public policy environment in Ontario is rapidly changing, which must be accounted for on the City's journey to develop missing middle and/or affordable housing that meets the needs of Kitchener. While encouraged by the government's commitment to build 1.5 million new units of housing in the next decade, other policy recently introduced policy changes present new opportunities and barriers to enabling missing middle and/or affordable housing: • Bill 23, More Homes Built FasterAct: Participants shared that while Bill 23 and its interest in growing supply is encouraging, including the permitting of traditional missing middle typologies. At the same time, participants note that the City has carefully introduced by-laws and processes that meet the local needs, and Bill 23 introduces new changes and pivots that must be accounted for. Bill 23 has implications that could place the burden of carrying the costs associated with development onto municipalities, especially for areas like affordable housing programming. Interviewees also raised concerns around the City having a 42 Page 107 of 601 Parcel reduced role in land use planning and while reductions in requirements and standards the municipality can introduce for development may have ripple effects on quality. • Bill 39, Better Municipal Governance: Participants note that Bill 39 has created uncertainty at the municipal level since it has introduced a process to review upper/lower tier municipal roles and responsibilities. While the Region is primarily responsible for the delivery of affordable housing (with lower -tier support for execution, development approvals, etc.), interviewees acknowledge that the City has focused on filling any gaps in programming, commitments, and policies at the Regional level since their focus is Region -wide, and not specifically on the needs of Kitchener. Process Delays and Inefficiencies • Interviewees familiar with the development review process noted the recent effort to remove process barriers that would have otherwise caused delays in development approvals, namely: - A Development Service Review that resulted in improvements to the development applications and site plan approvals processes" -- The introduction of concierge service to support affordable housing projects through the development approvals process and navigate the municipal system. • Even with improved internal processes, delays continue to be a barrier as affordable housing projects are not formally fast -tracked or exempted from process requirements or steps. Interviewees also noted that some process delays stem from developers and industry lacking the experience and knowledge of application nuances and differences. Public Pushback • Not -in -my -backyard (NIMBY) sentiment is often a barrier to development because of its ability to delay the planning process through legal/procedural appeals, extensive public consultation, and unfavourable news coverage, and, in some cases, prevent Council decisions in favour of missing middle or affordable housing developments. Irar rr ,v �IN.id +h ina�d,�,IU(-'II¢LjI� �W „�o novv I)o Ian �wra iii 8 o'vwvv h )je(I r�on i;' p 7 �,�f' I � w W���_nIHI'�, sasn,rw�i �qC, e . � ��a'i�¢?I�, qir�' *;���rlu�,� aan ��, � q � � f a_,ir q _� Pi�fr I, G,iG:,dI+a+onpr'ce-,,In Pa:'RNsk'pI'8��a^k,:II 1 „i1')1),„!;'du-ILu � oq,r: I_,I la us I I IIor`I:,,s i,q'IaIred ,rpd.una,snd hr cr on 8 , II � p)Io a rai0Wu0 p,! rru oSIN n t'ee I rr Ia i prria!w!"'Y + 8 I(^s �aL'rfIaI; I CJ I:: lei rill r'd_n „rar;:” f,, ri;llcv i Prir:-Yn, sa �,v sIroorkI r c rba I ,i'Jn ,,� Is, ,p)n h aiilg ), fi vh ¢,:In r„orr �w i� nd o I r �r. 43 Page 108 of 601 Parcel • While most residents are not vocal against developments, there is a core group of strong voices that advocate to their local representatives/Council to avoid what they believe to be extensive or over- development in the City. Exclusionary By -Laws and Requirements • Exclusionary by-laws and requirements have made it difficult to diversify the housing typologies within existing neighborhoods. • Limited regulations, even if missing middle typologies are a permitted use, include minimum lot sizes, floor space ratios (FSR), transitions to surrounding low-rise residential and requiring truck turnaround area on site for multi -unit buildings. • Parking requirements are a barrier to infill housing as parcels of land may be able to accommodate housing but not the required number of parking spaces. • Heritage requirements and the permitting process can discourage the development of social infrastructure, including affordable housing. • Interviewees noted that by-laws and requirements, including zoning, are under a continuous cycle of improvement, and that staff are always seeking ways to avoid and/or remove unintended exclusions or barriers. Developer Interest and Delivery Capacity • There is limited developer interest in missing middle and affordable housing projects, likely due to the risk associated with lower financial returns and the difficulty meeting profit margin expectations. • There is an opportunity to attract smaller -scale developers, support non-profit providers already in Kitchener, and/or identify socially minded developers who may be interested in partnering with the City for missing middle and affordable housing. However, it was noted that these firms may have capacity -based and/or financial barriers to producing this type of housing. It was suggested that partnerships be structured to address these barriers. • The City has actively made changes to processes and procedures as a result of industry feedback received from a roundtable working group with City staff and the development community. This precedent and existing relationship will be helpful to understand how the City can develop industry interest in missing middle and affordable housing. 44 Page 109 of 601 Parcel The foregoing research provides important context and clarity as to "how' /"why" certain development patterns have emerged in Kitchener in recent years, with widespread agreement relating to the key challenges associated with the delivery of both missing middle and affordable housing. With this common understanding established, it is further noted that—despite some obvious differences in prioritization or relative "weight" of importance between public and private sector participants—the areas of mutual interest and overlap potentially outweigh the objectives which are unique to just one stakeholder group. This presents a unique opportunity for representatives of both the public and private sector to work collaboratively in advancing common interests relating to the delivery of missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener. F,.„w.,H I7 Overlap of Preferred Stakeholder Outcomes l�iiiriiiiva e ' ectoir lrofit<'tl dhty: Cost I ffIc[nncy `event,* IMaxir plz fl )n Sp ood fv Malkot H'I;,I ,rJt,]]);,IJIJI/ I'Ii A I I' d,)J] 'ir. i rr r I �F_ o ry fit: �r e, c e: ���upprIIS, IIIiiio sy>�?,ctoiif,� 45 Page 110 of 601 Parcel 2.3 Incentives & Best Practices Led by members of StrategyCorp, our team conducted a scan of common incentives that encourage and enable the development of missing middle typologies, as well as the delivery of affordable housing units, based on the experiences of peer jurisdictions" The incentive programs researched have seen success where their administration is supported with adequate corporate policies and procedures, including clear eligibility criteria, program detail and a substantial administrative process. Notably, the City of Kitchener has also undergone a review of their own processes and procedures related to development to ensure they are as efficient and meaningful as possible. This study is expected to identify further policy and process improvements (as required) for the City to consider in order to enable the missing middle and affordable housing typologies best suited for the Kitchener context. It is also important to note at the outset of this section that the complex structure of, and application process for, incentive programs can be a challenge as they require specific consideration for successful execution. With recent industry calls for standardization to the development approvals process in Ontario, the process and procedure nuances that traditionally accommodate missing middle and affordable housing incentives may be perceived as additional administrative burden for industry (both private and non-profit). Change management and communications will play an important role in the City's roll-out of any incentive programs (and their related process/administrative changes) so that the benefits are clear, requirements are well -understood, and potential participants feel encouraged to take part where they are made available. Broadly, incentives have been identified as falling into one of the following three categories: Financial, Process and Policy. Ir:;�,woxN�I•, @"�„Np I Jiu �7, � i,&,; f;"� i_,ii, L.�,71f+_r¢ I o;cpi_-,aw, I"+39� �4iarrci u c�P7, � ,u1:7ar, P,l�ia ,r7Br)r'i„\,7ddI:u �as, mrp,+;an.) _,dl7u7w'ss. 46 Page 111 of 601 H ptl)Uwo iv�",e Summary of Incentive Types: Financial, Process & Policy Financial Process Incentives creating financial Incentives creating process efficiencies for the recipient efficiencies for the recipient (e.g., fee exemptions/ (e.g., process exemptions, discounts/ deferrals, in-kind special service level contributions such as public commitments for designated land). project types, etc.). sour! 'x cl, "uI d Parcel Policy Incentives driven by changes in policy that create more allowances for different typologies, require the construction of certain typologies and/or create more flexibility on a project -by - project basis. Given many of the costs to build missing middle and affordable housing are the equivalent to higher -density and/or market -rate housing, the lower returns typically captured by these housing formats can render projects financially infeasible. Financial incentives that reduce capital costs (e.g., construction, planning application fees, etc.) and/or building operations (e.g., property taxes, etc.) can positively affect the financial viability of a development, thereby making it more likely to occur. These incentives typically take the form of exemptions/waivers/grants or deferrals and influence the financial viability of a development directly. Fee Exemptions / Waivers / Grants Exemptions, waivers, or grants help to reduce capital and/or operating expenses, thereby increasing financial viability. They do not need to be repaid. 47 Page 112 of 601 Parcel 0 Development charge exemptions s Property tax exemptions Other fee exemptions /discounts (e.g., parkland, planning applications, etc.) Capital grants and municipal capital facilities agreements Fee Deferrals In some cases, payment of certain fees will be deferred to building occupancy or later. Such deferrals may allow the developer to reduce initial costs and procure improved financing terms while still ensuring that the municipality receives payment to fund growth -related expenses. Deferred charges are typically paid in equal installments and subject to an interest rate tied to the Bank of Canada prime rate at the time of building permit issuance, though specific payment conditions depend on the municipality. Property taxes Process incentives can be used to support desired types of development by allowing projects to proceed more quickly through the approvals process, thereby reducing risk and costs. These incentives do not involve any direct financial contributions to enable developments, however they indirectly influence financial viability by creating greater certainty regarding development timelines and requirements. Process incentives that result in shorter development timelines also benefit current and future residents by bringing new supply online as quickly as possible. i Formally expediting the development approvals process for eligible projects (including service level agreements) 48 Page 113 of 601 Parcel Like process incentives, policy incentives indirectly influence financial viability by creating greater certainty on the part of the developer, in addition to—in some cases—enabling the type and scale of development necessary to achieve project viability. Policy incentives can also be used to establish improved as -of -right permissions to avoid spending time and/or money to go through the lengthy process of amending policies that would permit specific typologies or affordability levels desired by a given municipality. Waiving parking requirements / minimums (represents time savings to a developer by avoiding the need for a parking by-law amendment as well as the potential to reduce costs/increase revenues by reallocating parking space to additional residential space/units) Waiving historic preservation /conservation requirements percentage of affordable units (e.g. single development fee)"' �Lc,,o oa`sd ke,yond Iecen+ Pldl ill I / Orli. „, 49 Page 114 of 601 Parcel Kitchener Context: Summary of Existing Incentives i g u r n9' Existing Missing Middle & Affordable Housing Incentives in Kitchener"' Y Financial Process u Policy N�, • Development charge deferrals and waivers, application fee waivers, and building permit waivers for non-profit organizations. To -date uptake has been low to moderate: one application approved in 2014, two in 2018, two i n 2019, four i n 2020, six i n 2021 and two i n 2022 as of August. • Lean Review of Development Process in 2010, including subsequent improvements to streamline processes. Improvements include the introduction of software, the introduction of a Project Manager - Development Review, website redesign for site plan applications, daily status reports for customers, revision to job descriptions and the creation of site plan management meetings, reimagining of the pre -submission consultation process, workflow distribution, new streamlined urban • Sou rcu: Iloro,d m; P ,rider tw, p'dH ',1, design scorecards, and introductions of consistent staff reviewer. Concierge program specifically for affordable housing projects and non- profit organizations to support customer experience, including informal application fast -tracking whenever possible. Secondary dwelling (duplexes) as -of -right since 1994. Updates to the comprehensive zoning by-law (2019) in 2022 that focus on housing affordability through reduction in parking requirements for several zones and permitting of attached and detached ADUs aligned with the City's Official Plan. so Page 115 of 601 Parcel Bill 23: Enabling Legislation One of the most significant changes of Bill 23 legislation is making mandatory what would have previously been incentives offered by municipalities to encourage and enable the provision of missing middle and affordable housing. Key legislative changes include: Financial a Affordable housing, inclusionary zoning, and attainable housing units are exempt from development charges, community benefit charges, and parkland dedication. The definition for attainable housing has yet to be „ defined. • Rental units have reduced development charges based on the number of bedrooms (25% reduction for 3+ -bed+ units, 20% for reduction for 2 - bed units; 15% reduction for all other units). • Municipalities can charge a maximum of prime plus 1% on deferred development charges. • Parkland dedication is capped at 10% of land or its value for sites under five (5) hectares and 15% for sites over five (5) hectares. • Parkland dedication is capped at 10% of land or its value for sites under five (5) hectares and 15% for sites over five (5) hectares. • Community benefits charge is based only on the value of the land used for the new development, not the entire parcel. Process aSite Plan Control is no longer required for developments of fewer than 10 units. • Exterior design is no longer subject to site plan control Policy Three residential units are permitted as -of -right on residential lots and exempt from development charges, community benefits charges, and parkland dedication. 1. R lot 51 Page 116 of 601 I;tm,lr •Omni",• iliTtIZI Key Findings • Prototypical developments have been prepared for all housing typologies to help visualize opportunities for missing middle housing in Kitchener and act as a baseline for the missing middle candidate site and financial analyses. • Approximately one-third of properties in Kitchener (24,300 parcels) could accommodate missing middle housing typologies. Of these, 17,658 parcels could accommodate Plexes and 5,808 parcels could accommodate Low -Rise apartments. • Some 21% (5,830 parcels) of sites are located within the Central Neighbourhoods, while the remaining 79% (18,500 parcels) are located in the Suburban Neighbourhoods Parcel • Approximately 98% of these missing middle parcels have residential permissions and 88% are occupied by a single -detached house. Conversion to missing middle housing would require minimal amendments to current land use designations and acquisition / demolition / potential site remediation would all be relatively straightforward. • Depending on market "uptake", missing middle typologies could house between 20,000 and 30,000 new residents of Kitchener. • Under a scenario where there is increased delivery of selected missing middle typologies, up to 1 in 5 (20%) new residents in Kitchener could be accommodated on just 2% of all parcels City-wide or 5% of parcels identified as missing middle supportive. 52 Page 117 of 601 Parcel 3.1 Overview This section visualizes and quantifies opportunities for missing middle housing in Kitchener, based a series of prototypical developments prepared by Smart Density in collaboration with City staff. Prototypes were prepared based on the following parameters: • The use of existing land use policy, zoning, and urban design guidelines as a baseline; • The deliberate use of prototypical lot sizes / dimensions in Kitchener that correspond with specific typologies; and, • The direction to "push the envelope" in design from the status quo and therefore deviate from existing City standards where necessary. Our analysis identifies opportunities within the current land use and zoning framework to better support missing middle typologies, addressed through policy recommendations presented later in the report. Finally, our approach conducts a "deeper dive" into selected missing middle typologies, specifically those with characteristics that provide opportunities to investigate the potential of less common typologies in the Kitchener context (i.e., New Format Towns, Plexes, Low -Rises and Mid -Rises). More common typologies (Singles, Traditional Towns, ADUs, High -Rise) are presented herein as "graphic only" demonstrations for additional reference. Official Plan There are three (3) types of residential land use designations - low rise, medium rise, and high rise - in the City of Kitchener Official Plan, each with their own permitted typologies and maximum densities, floor space ratios (FSR), and heights. Missing middle typologies are generally permitted in low rise and medium rise residential lands, however, they may be limited by the aforementioned built form requirements (density, FSR, height). Updating these built form requirements would allow for greater flexibility to accommodate missing middle housing without changes to permitted typologies. 53 Page 118 of 601 Parcel Fkpwe 1 Residential Land Use Designations Low Rise Residential a Single detached dwellings • Additional dwelling units, attached and detached • Semi-detached dwellings • Street townhouse dwellings • Townhouse dwellings in a cluster development • Low-rise multiple dwellings • Special needs housing • Other forms of low-rise housing Medium Rise Residential e Townhouse dwellings in a cluster development • Multiple dwellings • Special needs housing High Rise Residential • High density multiple dwellings • Special needs housing ^; �I.ar¢ �r „�&, I a S c Ido i rB., ��a,8 <iL(,&aeri �¢ ,1V Viii::�ioIl '8,iri'`;`,7��ei�:I', Zoning 0.6 to 0.75 3 storeys or 11 m 0.6 to 2.0 8 storeys or 25 m 2.0 to 4.0 n/a There are currently seven residential zones in Kitchener with varying degrees of residential permissions based on density. Missing middle typologies are generally permitted in residential zones RES -4 to RES -7, the most permissive of the residential zones. They are not permitted in residential zones RES -1 to RES -3 (i.e., singles, semis, and ADUs only). 54 Page 119 of 601 Parcel There may be an opportunity to streamline these zones into a fewer total number with increased permissions for missing middle housing, particularly in the lower -density zones. Rgurc 3_2 Residential Zoning Permissions ZONE RES -1 RES -2 RES -3 RES -4 RES -5 RES -6 RES -7 'Ad di[i...I resmictions apply ";ou(` , l v �Akpxdwdel`Ii'mg Fly, 1. 0 3.2 Development Concept Profiles Based on the foregoing parameters and direct collaboration with City staff, Smart Density has prepared visual demonstrations for each of the eight housing typologies identified for this study. In addition to the preliminary building massing graphics included in this report, more detailed architecture and design considerations have also been provided under separate cover to the City, including preliminary floor plan / site layouts and other key considerations for selected missing middle typologies. 55 Page 120 of 601 Parcel The results of this work—including brief design rationales, graphics and summaries of key development statistics— have been summarized in the series of one-page profiles included herein. These preliminary design concepts have served as both a helpful reference for visualizing the opportunities for missing middle typologies in a Kitchener -specific context, as well as a critical baseline for the financial analysis prepared by the study team. Location Indicators: ID Included in Financial Analysis 41 Not Included in Financial Analysis 56 Page 121 of 601 Parcel Single -detached houses can use scales and massing similar to the surrounding dwellings to help maintain the character of the neighbourhood. This can be achieved by using similar property dimensions, setbacks, heights, and footprints. F i Visual Demonstration of Singles Concept (A) "," )fl .,Wh '�,iL. i��nt'�t'pl/ aoopI� Ic f� p; u , r po..hf ,:no o 86 o i::p,m, WnI �d,'ui JI - do i hwl un I U, , Lot Size / Width: 16 units'"' x 0.025 ha = 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) / not applicable Central Gross Floor Area: 16 units x 218 m'= 3,495 m2 (37,600 ft2) G FSR: 0.9 Storeys: 2 Suburban Units: 16 Average Unit Size: 218 m2 (2,350 ft') G �nr�,�IIchn�. „ w����aia���n�+w�u�.a �q �r7+ �;�,ar�� iaw;!��Wv a,ill ������ah�iBwV� ���qu��f� i!!� �,��i�, rnre 7 �,I .,n,r���idegi�i� .int+�+'��"u(�"+, ,a�7� "�iinuiply i �°,^�,,t� �" � 1 r V`� � 1 � 1 �Bopr k I,a:;w+,Ini�ii�ir 57 Page 122 of 601 Parcel Accessory dwelling units are small, independent dwellings that fit on the same lot as a main house. This typology fits seamlessly into a low-density neighbourhood context and has minimal visual impact on the streetscape. It allows property owners to downsize or provide independent living for a family member, among other things. Visual Demonstration of ADU Concept (B) SMART DENSITY S, _"1dL. r�" "7, I "ipt rio`tltl?bPhji i. Lot Size / Width: Gross Floor Area: FSR: Storeys: Units: Average Unit Size: 0.01 ha (0.02 ac) / not applicable Central 79 m'(850 ft' e 1.06 1 Suburban 1 79 m'(850 ft') 58 Page 123 of 601 Parcel Traditional row townhouses provide grade -related housing in a denser form than single- detached dwellings while maintaining similar characteristics to the existing neighbourhood, such as private driveways, garages, and backyards. F kDw..aac 13 5 Visual Demonstration of Traditional Towns Concept (C1) Lot Size / Width: Gross Floor Area: FSR: Storeys: Units: Average Unit Size: 0.40 ha (1.0 ac) / not applicable Central 3,456 m2 (37,200 ft2 G 0.85 2 Suburban 24 e 144 m2(1,550 ft2) 59 Page 124 of 601 Parcel New format townhouses provide grade -related housing in a more compact form than traditional townhouses while maintaining similar characteristics to the existing neighbourhood, such as private garages and backyards. This typology provides a smooth transition between busier streets and smaller -scale neighbourhoods. F a�:ja.� r k, ,^" Visual Demonstration of New Format Towns Concept (C2) S, _"I dL. r�. "7, I apt F,o`tltl?bPhji i. Lot Size / Width: Gross Floor Area: FSR: Storeys: Units: Average Unit Size: 0.15 ha (0.36 ac)/ 24 m (258 ft) Central 1,543 mz (16,614 ftz e 1.06 3 Suburban 9 G 171 m2(1�846dtz) 60 Page 125 of 601 Parcel Multiplexes are a type of multi -family housing that is divided into individual units, each accessed from an interior circulation core. This typology is suitable for transit -supported neighbourhoods due to lower parking provisions Visual Demonstration of Plexes Concept (C3) SMART DENSITY Lot Size / Width: 0.04 hectares (0.1 1 acres) / 12 m (129 ft) Central Gross Floor Area: 808 m2(8,701ft2) e FSR: 1.87 Storeys: 3 plus basement Suburban Units: 8 Average Unit Size: 88 m2 (949 ft') G 61 Page 126 of 601 Parcel Low-rise apartment buildings are divided into individual units, each accessed from an interior circulation core. This typology is suitable for transit -supported neighbourhoods with properties that are wider than typical residential lots in Kitchener due to lower parking provisions. p 8 Visual Demonstration of Low -Rise Concept (D1) Lot Size / Width: Gross Floor Area: FSR: Storeys: Units: Average Unit Size: 0.06 ha (0.16 ac) / 18 m (194 ft) Central 1,210 m2 (13,024 ft2 e 1.92 3 plus basement Suburban 15 e 66 m2(712 ft') 62 Page 127 of 601 Parcel Mid -rise buildings are four to eight storeys in height and divided into individual units, each accessed from an interior circulation core. This typology maximizes available space to provide more housing options, helps frame main streets, and provides a suitable transition from denser areas of the city. I kT..0n Q Visual Demonstration of Mid -Rise Concept (D2) j�r °7l„n apt rio`tltl?bPl;,,i i. Lot Size / Width: Gross Floor Area: FSR: Storeys: Units: Average Unit Size: l% `g: 0.11 ha (0.27 ac)/ 36 m (1 18 ft) Central 2,745 m2 (29,549 ft2 2.51 6 Suburban 32 70 m2 (757 ft2) 63 Page 128 of 601 Parcel The City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual is a set of guiding principles and performance criteria that sets the expectations of how tall building designs can enhance the public realm and pedestrian experience. This can be achieved by using tools such as transition, built form, and scale. 1 a^'_lure w 10 Visual Demonstration of High -Rise Concept (E) a� �a� auN p wW� wo olifteof .:010 111001V nNal WUw� wWNW I0101". wlnp NWUWiNW wWIM 0 WW ' Now W U10"J", O�PIWIWwNW W a WOPIWINIW 10.10WIWPww OlU!WWwwu OiIWNIW0lpllwwll0lWMIWuwW wWwwwu W0010011 0W I010 Wwwl W w 0WWu4'!WwUIOWNWWWWWwk NWwWWINNIWWIIIIIW9WWW ,. iOw�INwNNwONI010IWWNIW411WY1 ww01NONI0INWWWWWWWwN9W WIIwInWwwwwwwN"W OK amwxwwww wwMNNNWW,W$w,uwgM .. WWO@WWWWwWIWWWWWWW._ Lot Size / Width: Gross Floor Area: FSR: Storeys: Units: Average Unit Size: 0.28 ha (0.69 ac)/ not applicable Central 32,981 m2(355,000 ft' 11.81 45 Suburban 425 66 m' (710 ft') 64 Page 129 of 601 Parcel 3.3 Scope of Missing Middle Opportunity To understand the magnitude of the opportunity for missing middle typologies to accommodate future growth in Kitchener, we have conducted a scan of the City's existing parcel fabric to identify "candidate" sites capable of supporting selected prototypical developments identified above. Note: Understated Opportunity For this exercise, we have focused our review on the existing supply of individual parcels, however, we recognize that land assemblies (i.e., the combination of two or more parcels to form a single consolidated development site) could further enhance the scope of this opportunity. This is especially true for larger, more land -intensive typologies, such as the Mid -Rise typology. Land assemblies are complicated and often result in a higher overall land costs as individual property owners negotiate for more than their neighbour received (i.e., knowing that they now have more power in the negotiation, as the developer has already started to invest in their immediate area). Focusing on individual parcel opportunities ensures that the potential "pool" of available developers are not limited to just the well-established and experienced organizations already operating in the City, but also the future up-and-coming builders just starting out. Figure 3.11 provides a summary of the parcel characteristics targeted for each of Smart Density's missing middle designs. These characteristics—specifically lot area and perimeter—were cross referenced with the City's existing parcel data to identify candidate sites via a two-step process. • First, all parcels with a lot area at least as large as those considered by Smart Density and less than the lot area of the next typology in the spectrum were identified (e.g., parcels with a lot area of at least 432 square metres and up to 647 square metres were considered suitable for an 8-Plex). 65 Page 130 of 601 Parcel • Secondly, the shortlist of sites deemed appropriate from the perspective of lot area (per above) was filtered further by using perimeter as a proxy for lot dimensions or ideal property shape"". In the case of sites with an area slightly larger than considered by Smart Density, we considered a perimeter consistent with a similar aspect ratio (e.g., the prototypical site for Smart Density's 8 -flex design concept is three times as deep as it is wide, so any candidate sites slightly larger than this ratio were filtered to have perimeters consistent with a site three times as deep as they are wide). I aqua, w'."1 "N Missing Middle Parcel Characteristics Plexes 8 units i 432 sm 12.0 m 36.0 m 96.0 m Low -Rise 15 units 648 sm 18.0 m 36.0 m 108.0 m Mid -Rise 32 units 1,080 sm 36.0 m 30.0 m 144.0 m New Format Towns 9 units 1,440 sm 24.0 m 60.0 m 168.0 m 1..!U1rc We estimate that more than 24,200 parcels—or approximately one third of all properties City-wide— could accommodate missing middle housing typo I og i es."I '''� I h ( , paI I )",or, r v,ul f 10 vi3r flr„ d 1'�apo i /N's� n :nr o_ )�p�m otJon (8,'91' V_,, did wlulh� cia:clin Ivvkkh, 81 p+1,1 , oa 7,a,ir'id pu riru7oHr Biu:: jcinu G, Pl x, �:, I un 1+'Js , h+qK6 P- art] NJr, r 8 jm,wa I _"vii gyp, Ar;:+ pi �w�r'il��,r. Nlixe & r OITt o.'Irw,m tntio. u8 nckAhbo,oahooid havo h, cn G ch ,� ,ao41, cluc d how �k , , as hi ,� ,,dna ,` ia��iNsil,, 1`1`1L Is ha a,o fl::o L,con exch,dcd 66 Page 131 of 601 Parcel Through this process, we have identified that there is tremendous potential to accommodate missing middle housing typologies across the City, especially in areas of Kitchener where supporting infrastructure already exists. This is especially true at the "gentle density" end of the spectrum—including Plexes and Low -Rise typologies, which can be accommodated by more than 96% of the eligible missing middle parcels identified. Overall, we estimate that: • 26% (17,615 parcels) of the City's parcels could accommodate Plexes; • 9% (5,759 parcels) could accommodate Low -Rise apartments; • 1% (596 parcels) could accommodate Mid -Rise apartments; and, • 0.3% (234 parcels) could accommodate New Format Towns. Approximately 21% (-5,800 parcels) of the missing middle candidate sites are located within the Central Neighbourhoods, as defined by the City's Development Charges By -Law, while the remaining 79%(-16,400 parcels) are located in Suburban Neighbourhoods Fig 1U i;'" Kitchener Missing Middle Parcels -Total Supply entiraII INoilghl ouIrlhoods Plexes 4,385 parcels 30% Mid Rise 123 11 Suburban N6gIhI oIl.jIrhoods Plexes 13,230 pa rcels 25% 11 c'vv ki 1 Saar^I;r Ud R v e w rE' pairc.el _cure Parc;,I b r,,H a �'ha aho� Ni, �ghla co c rn ill7 e" sc�y�)h& ,I su p) 4idaq 01 sc typi!�; Vic¢ hoth ind non us �� I v ::8cm8 Clr'Y a [)Oc a, hwrkl :, u6lky, and iwuq,: hor iwi ; 67 Page 132 of 601 Parcel These candidate sites are the "low hanging fruit" opportunities for missing middle intensification. Overall, 99% of the supportive parcels identified City-wide are already home to residential uses and would likely only require changes in zoning to accommodate missing middle typologies. Furthermore, 88% of the potential sites are occupied by single -detached houses, suggesting that they could be acquired with relatively low complexity. Similarly, any existing structures could be demolished quickly and affordably, and the lands would have a low potential for contamination requiring costly remediation. Less than 1 % of the missing middle -supportive parcels are currently designated for non-residential uses and would require a re -designation. We note that this high-level scan of all parcels across the City does have some limitations. For example, at this scale it was not possible to ensure that every parcel identified as having missing middle potential has the appropriate servicing capacity to support intensification. Furthermore, some parcels likely have site specific constraints which would, at minimum, complicate intensification to the point of curtailing redevelopment. Traditional Townhouses: Street -Front / Back -to -Back Towns Traditional street -front townhouses—commensurate with the Towns (C14typology—are often included as consolidated blocks within large suburban subdivisions that can include a broader mix of building types (e.g., single -detached, semi-detached, townhouses and even low to mid -rise apartment buildings). The parcel analysis detailed in this section was focused on identifying individual sites with the potential to accommodate intensification without the need for additional land assembly. We acknowledge that these more suburban townhouses will continue to be constructed in the City's greenfield areas, further contributing to the ability of the community to advance missing middle growth, over and above the analysis presented here. 68 Page 133 of 601 Parcel Accessory Dwelling Units: Basement Apartments / Backyard Units Based on our review of building permits, more than 1,900 ADUs have been added to the housing supply in Kitchener over the past 10 years. The majority of these units include renovations to existing dwellings to create additional units (e.g., basement apartments, colloquially known as "duplexes" in Kitchener). Building permits for backyard units—commensurate with the ADUs (B) typology introduced earlier—began to emerge in 2021eWe have identified at least 12 such permits since then, however, there is potential for far more in the future. The recently completed Land Needs Assessment as part of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan Review (2022) forecasts some 1,380 additional "secondary units" in Kitchener to 2051. This represents less than 3% of the parcels City-wide that currently contain single and semi-detached houses (estimated at some 52,800 parcels in total). Moreover, the 1,900 building permits for AD Us identified over the past 10 years represents less than 4% of these parcels. If ADUs continue to be added at the 5 -year building permit pace of approximately 275 per year, some 8,250 ADUs could be added with the capacityto house more than 15,450 residents over the next three decades. This is equivalent to one in every five houses adding an ADU. Demand Kitchener's population is expected to grow by some 140,100 residents by 20516 This will require 54,615 additional units, more than half of which -31,535 (55%)—are planned to be in the form of High Density"' units. Additionally, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) recently posted a bulletin in October 2022 assigning a housing target of 35,000 new units to be built in Kitchener by 2031. P'),cd _n .h jh I -A ' nwn:h i ni 8vIcj w �h, R iyc')Inal w'h8iw I'd I I n l,�'.� I"� 6;, / u Pi '� huh 8 &..a 7,_liv�� k)y , I L h� ,Idw ,,��m I ,7, oMrn —n +de�:;1 LII, 7 , �ri,,r'a�B ide�� � n, �, z, Gio u7�u? ;�wr w� 69 Page 134 of 601 Parcel Scenario A: Moderate Market Uptake As noted earlier in this section, more than 24,300 parcels or more than one third of the City's parcels could accommodate missing middle housing typologies. This presents the opportunity for missing middle typologies on already -serviced land to contribute significantly tothe accommodation of future dwellings and residents. Based on our review of parcels across the City in both the Central and Suburban areas, historical building permits, and the Region's LNA, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that some 780 parcels (i.e., just over 3% of those identified as having missing middle potential) could be redeveloped across the City by 2051eAs illustrated in Figure 3.13, this amounts to approximately 26 missing middle buildings or 333 units annually overthe 30 -year period. Over the past 10 years Kitchener has averaged 1,145 apartment starts annually"", with several of the last 5 years will above the 10 -year average (e.g., 2,750 apartment unit starts in 2010. This could be a conservative estimate, particularly if the City opts to advance a robust incentive program to encourage the development of these housing typologies. These missing middle units represent a 28% increase to the 10 -year average apartment starts. As noted in Section 2.1, the CHSP estimated that some 3,965 of Kitchener's single -detached units are owned by investors as of 2020. Although not all investors have profit maximization as their primary motivation, 780 parcels converting to missing middle typologies by 2051 represents just 20% of investor-owned single -detached houses being intensified to missing middle typologies; a reasonable assumption over 30 years. These new missing middle units could accommodate more than 18,900 new residents (more than 13% of the City's allocated population growth to 2051) on just over 1 % of all parcels across the City or just over 3% of those parcels identified as supportive of the missing middle. Furthermore, nearly 8% of the City's MMAH allocated target of 35,000 new units by 2031 could be met through missing middle typologies if an average of 333 missing middle units are completed over the next 8 years to 2031e :s+ ad on Cv l IC':: ds :9,7d�+ 70 Page 135 of 601 Parcel iopa..�a� 1 'N;: Summary of Potential Market "Uptake" of Missing Middle Typologies Plexes 8 units 17,615 sites 2.9% 510 sites 4,080 units 1.87 7,645 136 units 17.0 Low -Rise 15 units 5,759 sites 2.1% 120 sites 1,800 units 1.87 3,373 60 units 4.0 Mid -Rise 32 units 596 sites 20.1% 120 sites 3,840 units 1.87 7,195 128 units 4.0 New Format Towns 9 units 234 sites 12.8% 30 sites 270 units 2.60 702 9 units 1.0 24,204 sites 3.2% 780 sites 9,990 units 1.89 18,914 333 units 26.0 :. op�c c! Pi,dpi+..R, i o',e+: w)¢¢ r,,'u.p:`� ;uw,iR , h uJ pcpI ,�ar,iId Assuming a conservative assessment value of $160,000°`" for each new apartment unit created—regardless of building typology and location—the City's property tax base could grow to include an extra $13.4 million annually upon completion and market entry of these new missing middle units. Scenario B: Increased Market Uptake As established above, the parcels capable of accommodating an 8-Plex or Low -Rise apartment building make up the majority of the missing middle potential, or "opportunity". If these two typologies in particular are incentivized to the point where the development community begins to direct more significant attention, increases to the number of future residents housed and potential property tax increases generated could be substantial. For example, as noted in Figure 3.14, two-thirds of the missing middle potential parcels are zoned RES -2 or RES -3, which do not permit the missing middle development concepts prepared by Smarty Density as -of -right. A simple update of the permissions within these zoning categories would eliminate the need for a zoning by-law amendment when proposing a missing middle typology, reducing complexity, time, and both direct and indirect costs to the developer. Ll: ,oh -w, nc,anf8,)i or'i. 71 Page 136 of 601 Parcel Fk ium, 314 Current Zoning Designation of Potential Missing Middle Parcels iiir�air s - cur, , I'aar ',� , P � od ) �a i V I o t`a� �I 8<,'at A oda or '' n7 I,I g I3"„ Iaaav 'd:; ,' V 6 1 "Slee:� I off: ,- @ i Jug 0 ro �uar"r' n (Rotl,ri8o�d ,ur'w I,I � x :!iala 10wa , For example, if just 5% of the 8-Plex and Low -Rise parcels are converted, nearly 29,400 residents could now be accommodated in missing middle typologies to 2051, increasing the annual tax collected on these sites by more than $20.7 million each year. We note this is commensurate with one third of investor-owned single -detached houses (see Section 2.14 intensifying to missing middle typologies. Simply put, we estimate that 1 in 5 (20%) of new residents could be accommodated in missing middle typologies on just 2% of all parcels across the City or 5% of parcels identified as missing middle supportive under this more advanced delivery scenario. Furthermore, this advanced delivery scenario could deliver almost 12% of the City's MMAH allocated target of 35,000 new units by 2031e 72 Page 137 of 601 Parcel When comparing this format of housing against more traditional typologies at either end of the spectrum, this would be the equivalent of: • High -Density - 112 typical apartment buildings; or, Low -Density& 7,900 single- and semi-detached houses. Key Consideration: Revenue Capture & Funding Opportunities In combination with the incentives evaluation detailed later in this report, it is important to acknowledge the potential fiscal impacts of an increased market "capture" for these missing middle typologies. Specifically, the City will need to evaluate the extent to which this could generate additional property tax revenues on already -serviced lots that have—at least to some degree—already been planned to accommodate housing and new growth. Where possible, this will need to be counterbalanced with two key factors: (i) any revenue shortfall or surplus available to be allocated to the ultimate financial incentives offered if an and (ii) any measure of the "substitution effect", which will determine whether these represent "net new" revenue streams or simply a replacement for other new development that would have otherwise continued to occur elsewhere in the City in a different formats. Recent and ongoing research exercises in communities across the country continue to investigate the "pound -for -pound" fiscal impacts of new development in predominantly suburban greenfield contexts vs. opportunities for infill and intensification in more established residentiald mixed use environments. These concepts will need to be rationalized in a Kitchener -specific context. 73 Page 138 of 601 J=- MM III 'M .'M Lem LM Key Findings • Singles, Suburban Towns, Plexes and High -Rise ownership scenarios are discernable "winners", re -enforcing recent development patterns in Kitchener (i.e., the extremes of the low - and high-density spectrum) • There are numerous profitable rental typologies, however, all rental tenures consistently underperform ownership, which make them less attractive to "quick win" typologies. • Many missing middle typologies— including Mid -Rise apartments—tend to yield lower returns due to an awkward relationship between development scale and (costly) parking needs. • Timing—or "investment horizon"—is an important factor that influences both built form and tenure considerations. Parcel • Many missing middle forms are challenged by their attractiveness relative to other preferred typologies; and alternative investment vehicles • Affordability requirements negatively affect all typologies, but High -Rise apartments have the greatest potential to absorb affordable housing into a pro forma while maintaining favourable return metrics. • Any increase in hard costs will negatively impact ownership typology profitability and return metrics such that projects become unviable. Decreasing hard costs positively affect ownership typologies, but does not improve outcomes for any rental typology enough to attract additional interest. 74 Page 139 of 601 Parcel 4.1 The Basics The development of new real estate—whether market or non -market (affordable)—can be extremely complex given that its success is dependent on a multitude of factors spanning countless industries and professional disciplines. Similarly, development can be heavily influenced by both broader macroeconomic conditions and more site- specific factors; all of which are key determinants in the ultimate viability of a given project. For simplicity, we often synthesize this to the identification of four key elements that can have some of the most significant impacts on financial feasibility: Policy, Market, Land and Capital. The successful integration of all of these factors is required to set the groundwork for viability. F a^Jet,ae 1. "I The "Sweet Spot" for Successful Development Projects �� p: Ii ,wu l�,I i 'ori �tqw I av,a k ld i ri.o the 0 tG¢ ! �pI F, pI. h cp��asli,_ ^.w���':� Iwt the hiliIV �oirm anII m "de k) ai::N i's„o�h hn ar'i al n J ,�,;� n in¢waire IihIisaq ^pig I Is`:' am V`I''Oflllcy )1k,in iii prk�,o'J' k Hier,,d„'w°'I':[H,, 4w fl,m Lufld4j _r)st w�il'Grtwr 75 Page 140 of 601 Parcel As introduced in Section 1.3, we have prepared Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analyses for each housing typology identified through this study''. Our team chose to undertake DCFs, as opposed to a more simplified and static Residual Land Value (RLV) analysis, because: • A DCF takes into account the timing of development cash flows, recognizing that projects typically occur over many years; • It captures the Time Value of Money (TVM), given that "a dollar in your hand today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow"; • It offers the opportunity prepare a more detailed evaluation of the potential profitability of purpose-built rental apartments, specifically their cashflow-generating potential during operations (i.e., post - development); and, • The prototypical development concepts prepared by Smart Density for the Missing Middle typologies provided the necessary detail to complete this type of analysis. Notwithstanding the foregoing differences, it is helpful to keep in mind that the overall structure of any financial feasibility modelling is effectively the same. Both simplified and very detailed development pro forma analyses can always be simplified to their core elements: Revenues, Costs and Profits. How certain revenued cost and profit assumptions are applied can also vary when dealing with different tenures in the case of residential development (i.e., ownership vs. rental housing). The key difference being that most ownership (condo -based) residential developments are focused on relatively short-term investment horizons consisting of predominantly one-time cost / revenue streams, whereas purpose-built rental housing requires a much different investment "lens", that can span many years (i.e., including operation of the new asset, upon its completion and market entry). �8 ��1-1wia0�, - �. qA 8i +di71! 1 , 1 lw� bra+ �(,�)im&ngi o o 'iPPw0Pp i� b, I�,,°up ,uIi:Ilpio'�u l � u U i two �gwNB^r+aur��:�r�L) r �i! :, I o �vr7 1,1 ,oa+ill, s«�:^&&a � ia7a!&tILI:�I zda I�w I � ,)�I,)�;,I�fir � iW1;I�w,( " i p y V h--i-�'j. 76 Page 141 of 601 Fi::lu. , e Basic Structure of Financial Feasibility �I Urc:: I'�ir oI SII ll1 II t, °',II Parcel � Costs... Il:u )l?l y'„)��e, V�r a;x) + Not all developers are alike and there is no single return metric that signifies a financially viable project. Each paeticipaet in a development project looks at a unique subset of vaeia(bles aed return metrics under different conditions, based on their own requirements aed/or expectations. Common measurement tools include: • Net Profit / (Loss) The tota(baenount of money made (or lost) over the course of a project. • Internal Rate of Return (IRR) The expected compound aenua6return (%) over the course of the project. • Equity Multiplier (EMx) The number of times a project's origina6equity investment is returned to investors. 77 Page 142 of 601 Parcel • Cash -on -Cash Return (CoC) The cash flow after financing49/o) generated by the equity invested to date. It does not take into account the value of the building or any appreciation of value overtime. • Timing Opportunistic investors look for quick returns (e.g., condo apartments) while long-term investors value consistent returns over a longer period (e.g., rental apartments). • Measurements of Risk (Lenders): Loan to Value, Debt Service Coverage Ratio, Debt Yield, etc. Proforma analyses are important to all facets of urban development, with wide-ranging private and public sector applications. Financial feasibility modelling is—at its core—a tool for evaluating potential future outcomes. Whether motivated purely by profit or driven by other city -building objectives and social purpose, this type of analysis can be applied to any number of different "use cases" to maximize opportunities to achieve preferred outcomes. Broadly speaking, development proEforma analyses can be relied upon at various stages of the real estate development life cycle, including during the early stages of concept development (Pre -Development); throughout the entitlements and government approvals process (Approvals & Funding); as well as to inform the creation of sound land use policies that are mindful of the current—and anticipated future—conditions within a given market (Policy Development). 78 Page 143 of 601 &i°:"r;'A.aa Pro Forma Use Cases 11114' 11114'�'I' IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIV 011114'" IIII I�Sll Validate financial feasibility (pre- and post- land acquisition) Early-stage development scoping and concepttesting 4'° 11114'° 11114'. 11114S & U VIII' NN VIII' l' VIII IIIINilI Optimize development program (project "right -sizing", determine ideal land use mix, etc.) Optimize delivery of social benefits (affordable housing, community amenities, etc.) Parcel VIII C1"11li f 1111111111111'v 0 NA I Inform land use policy direction / special projects (OP Reviews, SP's, other municipal strategies, etc.) Prioritization of preferred municipal / city -building outcomes (DC's, parkland dedication, retail @ grade, affordable housing, urban design, etc.) For this study, pro forma analysis, and financial feasibility in general, has been utilized primarily as a tool for comparison rather than profit maximization. Furthermore, the analysis presented in this study has not been relied upon as an exact predictor of actual profits, nor profit maximization more broadly. It is more intended to help the City identify meaningful tools and incentives that result in desired outcomes, based on the range of key study objectives identified (i.e., "enabling" the development of missing middle and affordable housing). We acknowledge that some typologies and scenarios which may appear unprofitable in the following section could very well be profitable under the right circumstances and conditions, which deviate from our broad baseline assumptions. 79 Page 144 of 601 Parcel 4.2 Baseline Analysis First things first: what is the situation today in Kitchener? Conducting a baseline analysis based on today's market conditions and policy context has allowed us to establish an important starting point for this study. It has also helped us to compare the feasibility of a variety of unique development conditions that vary by Typology, Location and Tenure. Through a testing of 18 different resulting baseline analyses, we have been able to gain a more nuanced understanding as to why certain typologies are—or are not—being built in the Kitchener market today, in addition to identifying a number of key themes. Additionally, by leveraging these baseline results as a tool for comparison, the clear "winners" identified can help to set the goal posts in understanding how much additional support will be required for unprofitable scenarios to compete for development investment interest. It is helpful to first focus on the simplest of return metrics: does the scenario offer the potential to make a profit? Aside from the Central High -Rise building concept, all other baseline scenarios show potential for a profit of up to $2 million, or inversely a loss of $2 million. This narrow band is likely due, in part, to the relatively small land areas considered (1 acre or less), as well as the modest densities identified in the baseline concepts (between 0.9 and 2.5 FSR of development). Figure 4.4 demonstrates that several of the baseline scenarios are unlikely to make a profit. These include: • New Format Towns (Ownership & Rental); • Central and Suburban Low -Rise (Ownership); • Central and Suburban Mid -Rise (Ownership & Rental); and, • Central High -Rise (Rental). Furthermore, although potentially profitable, the remaining rental scenarios make so little profit over a 13-eyear timelines that it is unlikely that the other return metrics will justify the equity -heavy investments they require. This leaves only the Suburban Singles, Suburban Towns, Central 8-Plex, Central and Suburban Low -Rise, and Central High -Rise ownership scenarios as the only baseline scenarios with realistic profit potential that garner a deeper review of additional return metrics. 80 Page 145 of 601 Potential Profit/ Loss of Baseline Scenarios Prof it $10.0 million $8.0 million $6.0 million $4.0 million $2.0 million $0.0 million -$2.0 million -$4.0 million -$6.0 million -$8.0 million $10.0 million 0 yrs Ownership Rental 2 yrs 4 yrs 6 yrs 8 yrs 10 yrs 12 yrs 14 yrs 16 yrs 18 yrs Parcel 81 Page 146 of 601 Parcel IRR & EMx Now focusing just on the baseline scenarios with a potential for profit, Figure 4.5 further confirms that rental scenarios generate a lower Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Equity Multiplier (EMx), particularly given their longer timeframe. The clear "winners" of housing development in Kitchener begin to emerge here via the typologies generating close to 15% or more in IRR and achieving a reasonable EMx - in some cases over a much shorter time period (i.e., "quick wins"). This exact pattern has been evidenced through recent development patterns in Kitchener, which continue to favour high-rise apartments (Central High -Rise) and ground -oriented houses (Suburban Singlesd Suburban Towns). I igA.. e i..5 IRR & EMx of Potentially Profitable Baseline Scenarios III IIIm1111 Ownership Rental 35% 30% 25% 20% rll'.i'�IW 15% 10% Central Pl exes Central High -Rise 5% Central P exes 1.0x 1.1x 1.2x 1.3x 1.4x 1.5x 1.6x 1.7x 82 Page 147 of 601 Parcel coc It is also important to recognize that return expectations for rental housing can be different, particularly when adopting a "build -to -hold" strategy. In rental proEformas, both IRR and EMx can be heavily influenced by the reversion value at the end of the hold period (i.e., how much the owner is expecting to sell the building for in so many years). Because it is hard topredict the future—especially one or more decades out—many rental apartment developers will focus on the Cash -on -Cash (CoC) return that a property can generate each year in the more immediate future. This effectively isolates for the immediate value of cash flows from the building rather than any appreciation of value overEtime. Figure 4.6 illustrates that, based on CoC alone, a rental developer is unlikely to overlook poor IRR or EMx metrics in any of the rental scenarios identified for this study. In all cases, a "safer" and/or "easier" investment in 10 -year government bonds or a real estate -focused ETF will generate more cash in this regard, without the risk and effort required to construct—and manage—a building. 83 Page 148 of 601 F°� ''I �" ) LA M, , () Potential Cash -on -Cash Returns of Baseline Rental Scenarios 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0 yrs 2 yrs 4 yrs 6 yrs 8 yrs 10 yrs 12 yrs 14 yrs 16 yrs 18 yrs Parcel c) c. vvc) i�s -)c'cJ,c',d rC1 1 IrxIC1 as 1), 11 j C I Dc� L� 'EN -1I E7 S E� f (-� c 1") s o d : f h rcr,Lflrncd ovc�� (he List: 'I D yeo3 AHH Irr.intall sc-x"MMUS OWEr ("0C reLiwrins Lhain pos;all Ne firami a 10 piaii qovc,,irnrnc,,nL I.00ind 84 Page 149 of 601 Parcel Summary: What are the typical "goal posts" for feasibility? Figure 4.7 provides a summary of the baseline return metrics by typology and tenure, based on the development concepts detailed in Section 3.2. Through this analysis, we have continued to focus on the ability of development projects to reach the following "goal posts"—or "hurdle rates—as determined to be reasonable minimum measures of financial performance that suggest some promise of feasibility: • At least 15% IRR (depending on development on timeline); • Approximately 1.3 to 1.6 EMx (depending on development timeline); A CoC return that surpasses the 10 -year bond yield of 3.0%, in the case of rental scenarios. Fk,jure 1, Summary of Baseline Return Metrics by Typology "MISSING MIDDLE" 1 „;,TIN 1111 aE81'M111"'1 .... .. .� .. .� .. .� .. ."1111110 -II II aE8�1PM 111"'"11111 - "MISSING LITTLE" Return Metrics Ownership ""MISSING LITTLE" IRR 11111!1.111157 "III.8,'% ,0% 9% 1.7%-2.8% < 0,Y6 7111% EMx 1.22x - 1_34,:ic III Aft 1.16x 1.06x <11.1Au0X L.!54:x Rental IRR 6% 1% <01% 2% 2% cW1% <19% EMx N..'71x 1.06x 1I1,00X 1.21x 1.26x <111.00X W"1,000 coc 7,9% 2.0% 0.8% 2.2% 2.3% 1.3% 1.1% Relying on these potential baseline returns associated with the full spectrum of typologies, the sensitivity analyses in the following section—and the financial analyses of proposed incentives identified in Section 5.0—also focus on whetherthe associated impacts of these changes bring each typology closertothe identified goals posts (or in other terms, closertothe baseline return potential of the identified "winners" in today's market)". "71/c o.,aoae'ojn dwI Ihk; aprraoacIu Ila, r9&',y ' 9o to a�lalar'-a',,v I f I I tau d w0k S,,opofopw Inoump1kI'"_uldo iia a1a_i p _,h0 ahk i&h!rn 1 Iv ,�, r C Ch +l &11:-')pI1� Luo so v,nII ho I "I1H' I1 ,n4 aII� enwn� )k, omI _A') I( d:'¢,11,w, IpoI: 11 I11a 1h7 I ,(r,v a I:: -,)p w awrd ai', lan,a I i,uI po, tn, vvh'ach a,tT/ a +p_Ha rIaLJ h hal: Nhc r I1 1a,1aWu I lo p 1,', ,) iho Dnx 1unI cd 11 d and f art r, Ium,H11;;11 7 I � k ,11'911 gra a pry n ' ae 85 Page 150 of 601 Parcel Feasibility Profile: New -Build vs. Renovation When dealing with relatively small-scale infill and Missing Middle typologies in existing built-up areas, a key consideration faced by developers can be whether to initiate a "from scratch" development vs. contemplate an additiond renovation to an existing structure. This obviously presents different feasibility profiles and profit opportunities, thereby highlighting the need to consider the unique investment objectives of each developer or landowner (e.g., access to capital, achievable financing terms, non-financial motivations, investment horizon and degree of financial "patience", etc.). This dynamic is also further complicated by recent escalation in construction costs, which can often result in the "price tag" of a renovation becoming more comparable to a new build situation, especially at certain scales of development. Feasibility Profile: 3 -Bedroom Units New High -Rise apartment development—and some Missing Middle typologies—are predominantly comprised of 1- and 2 -bedroom units. These are often challenged in their ability to comfortably accommodate larger household sizes, including families. While it is important to provide housing options for all household sizes, there are important factors that challenge the feasibility of larger units (3+ bedrooms) as part of new development, particular in the context of higher density projects. Larger units typically have slightly lower hard costs (on a per square foot basis) as a result of construction efficiencies (e.g., an extra bedroom does not necessitate extensive plumbing and appliance additions, etc.), but also command lower prices/rents per square foot. As such, they are often less profitable than smaller units, which negatively impacts the development proEforma. This dynamic between costs and revenues also results in large units in mid- and high-rise buildings being comparable—or even more expensive—in sale priced rent to larger, more traditional ground - oriented housing that typically caters to larger households. Local developers interviewed for this study hypothesized that this may be a primary driver of why there is limited demand for larger units in denser development contexts. 86 Page 151 of 601 Parcel It is also important to note that, within a fixed building envelope, the inclusion of larger units necessarily comes with a reduction of smaller units and can result in a lower building efficiency (i.e., the ratio of gross to net floor area), thereby lowering total unit yield for the building and lower overall contribution to housing supply. Parcel conducted a unit sensitivity analysis on the High -Rise (E) typology to model the impact of a policy that includes 3 -bedroom units as part of the unit mix for a building of fixed density. When 10% of units were earmarked for 3 -bedroom units (versus a unit mix of 1- and 2 -bedrooms only): • The total number of units decreased from 425 to 400 ( %); • Revenues decreased approximately $20 million and, • Gross profit decreased approximately $17.5 million ( 5%) For a developer that already owns their land, these numbers are such that they may choose to forego the development altogether, due to the negative impact on the pro forma. In these cases, higher as -of - right density permissions to offset the loss of smaller, more profitable units may be required to increase the feasibility of including larger unit sizes. Ultimately, any policy requiring the inclusion of larger units should be phased in to allow land values time to adjust. 4.3 Sensitivity Analysis It is impossible to know with 100% certainty the outcome(s) of a given development project. Even the most likely outcomes are unlikely to occur. In light of the uncertainty and risks associated with any real estate project, we need to understand how much better (or worse) things can end up. The specific variables that drive these outcomes can also be extremely important to identify and evaluate. A "sensitivity" assessment can help in this regard, offering an opportunity to "tweak' or make small adjustments to individual variables of the baseline analyses in isolation while holding all other conditions constant (in theory): 87 Page 152 of 601 Parcel • What if market demand cools? • What if there is a flood (or lack) of new supply? • Will, lenders provide capital and at what cost? • What if construction costs rised fall in the future? • What if broader economic conditions improved deteriorate? Sensitivity Analyses: Common Variables In response to the key questions above, some of the specific variables often tested for sensitivity are: • Development Assumptions (overall density, space mix, unit mix, parking requirements) • Revenue Assumptions (sales per square foot, net rental rates, lease upd sales period, reversion value, hold period) • Cost Assumptions (above and below grade hard costs per square foot, financing rates) • Timing Assumptions (pre -development phase, construction timeline) Revenue is one of, if not the most important assumption in a developer's proEforma. From the very outset of a development project, revenue potential is front -of -mind for a developer deciding how much to pay for land. Simply put, it determines the total size of the "pie" to be distributed into land costs, hard costs, soft costs and—hopefully and importantly—some profit, without which a project will not occur It is also important to note that the economic forces that dictate market-based revenues are beyond the City's immediate control. Sales Revenues Our ownership baseline scenarios identify sales potentials based on current new construction residential pricing, grown 5% annually until the launch of sales. These sales levels, introduced in Section 4.2 and further detailed in 88 Page 153 of 601 Parcel Appendix D, resulted in 6 potentially profitable ownership typologies (i.e., Singles, Suburban Towns, Plexes, Low -Rise Apartments, and High -Rise Apartments). • If sales revenues were to be just 10% below our assumed future values, all but the high-rise typology would no longer be profitable. If sales revenues were to be 10% above our assumed future values, 3 additional typologies could be profitable (i.e., New Format Towns and both Mid -Rise Apartments in the Central and Suburban neighbourhood contexts).'``'' Relatively minor changes in sales revenue assumptions can result in significant changes to feasibility. Rental Revenues Rental revenues work the same way as sales revenues, albeit at a more diluted scale. Our rental baseline scenarios assume potential rents based on current market rental rates, grown 5% annually until lease up begins. These rents resulted in 5 profitable rental typologies (i.e., Suburban Towns, 8 -flex, Low -Rise in both the Central and Suburban neighbourhoods, and ADUs). We do note, however, that all but the ADUs generated too small a profit and associated return metrics to be viable. If rents were to be 10% below our baseline assumptions, the Suburban Towns and ADUs would no longer make a profit. • If rents were to be 10% above, the Suburban Mid -Rise rental would have the potential to make a profit, however at 20% above two more typologies could generate a profit (including the Mid -Rise and High -Rise Apartment typologies).?" • Higher (or lower) rents can also affect the reversion value of a rental building (e.g., the potential price the seller can expect upon sale of the building). For example, in our baseline analysis, the rental Plex is estimated to be worth some $4.1 million upon sale some 14 years from now, based on rental rates of approximately $3,425 per month (in year 15) and a capitalization rate of 5%. If rental rates were to be 20% wJ'w o ,ao�Iq¢j q&w„il p :rlwl li w I i � y ,ku_ I 11! � � ww'Jw q ki( , � l � n"' ( +Ipiga1:d�� � �d-1irn r +oNI i�: ;a i w w I i n e ) 'v, age ra�,k �c:Id a � r � ' ( p � up'�7"t 3 � d J w � r,� � id�d /�wo�iy �w�i �.1e wg 1 7k �wi �, ww p n � id i'licok o c riobl� � q�,im nn uk n .hn ddi wi l@ ���d:wi, q cl e�r� p Y flkiwe q �Yi � ,w� �dk�+:al �wli�' dh w h7i+_ppwJ m nis' ,�) w, rflal I h':° 7 Rw, o "'von ill �IH i"Jc wardflhon Rk , k+^ ; dw ink r" fillie ; 1he ncpiw d i piuo a' nd pu d u,, -r I ,1w un c,'j,O7 o +ch y^ ,wi ,"'er w h6' i.. y ww wn p q'eciH Imi+;h sn dl ro nd iinii i� ur7lwlkw'uk w'. 89 Page 154 of 601 Parcel below, the reversion value drops to just $3.2 million at the time of sale. Conversely, if rental rates were to be 20% above, the reversion value will climb to nearly $4.9 million. Feasibility Profile: Do Prices Always Go Up? Many factors contribute to price growth, including cost growth, market demand and the pricing of competitive goods. Historically, new construction apartment and stacked townhouse prices in Kitchener have been growing steadily annually, accelerating through recent years (Figure 4.8). High-rise apartments have been the exception with a recent decrease in the weighted average price per unit occurring in 2022. However, Figure 4.9 illustrates that when we focus on the new construction prices per square foot, high- rise apartment prices have actually continued to rise significantly. This is because the average size of the high-rise apartment units sold in 2022 was much lower at 570 square feet, compared to some 835 square feet the year prior. oYiil in: i,8 New Construction Apartment and Stacked Townhouse Sales ($) ,n;alr^_C� '+TI m o , :an /`aku data $;i 14396 Stacke�� fouun $ 610,561 IV<I"GI, AI,t e1V4 '.. d q u ii e „.,Y New Construction Apartment and Stacked Townhouse Sales ($PSF) COVIIIIID-1 1 fil sM SOW _C, W—CI V Cm Aku , ),-Ya Su.. io v I et a. Stacked Town $ 551 Similarly, Figure 4.d0 provides the historical average rents for private (or "purpose-built") apartments in the City and condo apartments across the Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo CMA. Since 2012, private rental apartment rents have grown 6% on average annually, while more recent data for condo rentals beginning in 2019 show a 9% average annual increase. 90 Page 155 of 601 Parcel We note that the steadier rise of the private rental apartment rents is influenced by a large proportion of older stock rental buildings and rent controls placed on buildings constructed before 2018. C- U IND 4, d 0 Average Private and Condominium Apartment Rents 8'1.8 rM 1113 1114 Ills 1116 111-7 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 SamI, cc I ,)Irc ll, oIII l"'I' llV" I4 llrLd V sol c° `uily y Il,ir'iivn7 o ,'err„; I,Urirmint i¢',A� aIiu� I( 11 dilw+'Illy° V IKih,ho uryc inwi colindo, I a lic h) I Forecasting future price or rent growth is very challenging, which is why sensitivity analyses are important. In our baseline analyses, we have assumed an average annual price growth of 5% to reflect a return to more gradual, pre -pandemic growth levels. Similarly, our assumed 5% annual increase in rents (up to lease up) is in-line with historical increases. 91 Page 156 of 601 Parcel Location, Location, Location Revenue -generating potential dovetails with location. As acknowledged in the Region and Tri -Cities' ongoing Inclusionary Zoning study, potential sales prices and rents vary across the City. For example, average rents are highest in the South -East CMHC Neighbourhood " and decrease by up to 20% to the most affordable South -Central CMHC Neighbourhood' ". Additionally, as illustrated earlier in this report, household incomes vary across the CMHC Neighbourhoods too, directly affecting the size and type of housing those households can afford to live in. When focusing on specific areas of the City, an adjustment to the revenue assumptions in each typology should be made to reflect hyper -local market conditions. Affordability Affordability requirements have a direct impact on potential revenues and can be tested in a similar manner to sales prices and rents. We note that all five rental typologies with a potential for some profit in their baseline analyses do not yield strong enough returns to warrant investment, even at 100% market rents. As such, any affordability requirement on these buildings would result in losses and deem them unlikely to get built without heavy subsidization. Focusing on the four potentially profitable ownership typologies, we can see the following effect as affordable units are added: • Single -Detached — including just 12.5% (two of the 16 units in a single -detached development site) as affordable would result in the baseline development becoming unprofitable and thus unlikely absent subsidization. A return to similar levels of profitability is possible if the land could be purchased significantly cheaper (e.g., $1.2 million or some 40% below market value), however, a private landowner is unlikely to adjust their land value expectations this far below market value. A more likely scenario is that the market units would need to be sold at a higher price ($90,000 more per unit) to maintain similar profitability, thus transferring the cost of the affordable units to the market -rate purchasers. This means that developers—who in theory are already charging the maximum price the market will bear at any given time—will have to wait for prices to increase, effectively sterilizing the land until the market has an opportunity to "catch up". Soo I w!.m I`,ws , I on he C] II IC P+ W kfl PANodX74 SM,,,TV (C"k hc-,hin ,1'l 92 Page 157 of 601 Parcel • Suburban Towns — like the Single -Detached typology, including just three of the 24 townhouses (i.e., 12.5%) as affordable units would all but eliminate any profitability. A return to similar levels of profitability is possible if the land was able to be purchased significantly cheaper (e.g., $1.375 million some 31% below market value) or again more likely if market units were sold at a higher price ($50,000 more per unit). • 8-Plex— including one of the 8 apartments (i.e., 12.5%) as affordable eliminates profitability of the baseline analysis. If(the land was purchased for less (e.g., $675,000 for a "teardown" house) or the market units can be sold for slightly more (e.g., $45,000 more per unit), or a combination of the two, profitability could be maintained. • High -Rise Apartments —including 10% of the units (i.e., 43 units) as affordable would reduce profitability dramatically, however, return metrics are still close to favourable and feasibility could be restored under certain conditions. If the land was purchased for less (e.g., $4.5 million less or a 33% reduction) or the market units can be sold for slightly more (e.g., $35,000 more per unit), or a combination of the two, profitability would still be lower, but return metrics such as IRR may still be favourable enough to move ahead with the project. Across all typologies, developer's already charge the maximum the market will bear for each unit. The requirement to sell market units at a higher price to offset affordable units will cause significant delays as the developer waits for market demand (e.g., prices) to catch up. Given that delays add costs to projects, the developer will likely need an even higher price in the future. These results highlight the strength of higher density projects in absorbing lower revenue affordable housing into a pro forma, plus delivering more affordable housing per equivalent unit of land area. 93 Page 158 of 601 Parcel Hard costs can amount to as much as 60% of a developer's costs and are highly influential on the profitability of a pro forma. Our baseline analyses consider the median value by building type published in the Altus Construction Cost Guide (2023) however, the guide provides for both "low" and "high" estimates, which we have considered in our sensitivity analysis. Our finding suggest that: • When the high-end of the cost guide's range is considered, two of the baseline typologies (i.e., Single Detached and Rental Suburban Towns) are no longer profitable, while those which remain profitable experience a drop in profits of between 31% and 57%, leading to return metrics that no longer support investment in many of the typologies. • Unsurprisingly, lower hard costs improve profitability for each of the baseline analyses to the point where most typologies have the potential to be profitable at the low-end of the cost guide's range. At these reduced hard cost, Low -Rise Condo Apartments in the Central Neighbourhoods and Mid -Rise Condo Apartments in the Suburban Neighbourhoods become financially feasible, or close to it. However, now profitable New Format Towns only make a small profit resulting in meager return metrics overall. Of note, no rental scenarios across all the typologies benefit enough from the reduced costs to attract much additional investment interest. We note that the bulk of projects across all typologies are likely to experience costs closer to the median values used in the baseline analyses, and not at the extremes (i.e., neither the low-end nor high-end considered in this sensitivity). Regardless, moving forward, growth (or decline) in hard costs will continue to be of prime concern to developers as it can take several years from acquisition of the land to shovels in the ground. Costs can rise significantly over this period. As illustrated in Figure 4.11, pre COVID- 19 construction costs rose at a steady rate, however, COVID-19 caused a major spike in cost growth that has yet to show significant signs of a return to pre -pandemic levels. 94 Page 159 of 601 Construction Cost Index 22M 200.0 1B0.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 00.0 Parcel Single-detached A (,r P1 rstoireys) Q'I Q2 Q3 Q4 Q'I Q2. Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 '1B 19 19 19 19 '20 '20 '20 '20 '21 '21 '21 '21 '22 '22 '22 22 Sc,mr 7 Parcc I, Lw:c ll n I@w ("v Even since the early days of the supporting research undertaken as part of this study process, our team has continued to observe the negative effects of rising hard costs in our baseline analysis as we updated from 2022 Cost Guide estimates to the more recently published 2023 Cost Guide. Although the Cost Guide cautions against direct comparison to previous versions, it has been difficult to ignore the changes to the median values as we updated our baseline feasibility analysis. These continued updates were particularly challenging to our pro formas for typologies utilizing wood frame construction where median costs rose between 14% (single -detached) and 20% (townhouses) over this period. As a result, the baseline return metrics for these typologies (see Section 4.2) were significantly reduced. 95 Page 160 of 601 Parcel Feasibility Profile: Other Macroeconomic Conditions Following an extended period of notably low interest rates leading up to the COVID-W pandemic, 2022 marked a period of notable adjustment, as recent government announcements continue to plot rates back up to approximately 6.70% (per the stated Bank Prime as of late January 2023). This represents an increase of some 4.25% over the past 12 months alone. i q a. it n a1: y Recent Interest Rate Increases Since January 2022 Bank IPiriiirrne iiincireased 4.25% duirfing the Ipast year 8.00% 6.00% 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '22 '23 S�'u of �.c' Par�.oljha'-Iod on In conjunction with the significant capital costs associated with developing new real estate, this can have significant impacts on financing (i.e., subject to the amount of equity available for a given project and/orthe amount required to be financed via debtd loans). In particular, we note that construction financing is often tied to Bank Prime rates, with lenders typically adding 50 to 200 basis points (bps). As such, construction financing can be as high as 8.70% today. 96 Page 161 of 601 Parcel Another major cost element in a developer's pro forma can be the cost of delivering parking, particularly in higher density typologies. The Altus Cost Guide estimates underground parking costs at between $70,000 and $95,000 per spot and above grade structured parking costs at between $50,000 and $75,000 per spot. Based on these estimates, parking costs can account for between 5% and 11 % of costs in baseline scenarios where structured or underground parking may be required (e.g., mid- and high-rise apartment buildings). For some typologies and locations, developers can charge for parking spots. For example, High -Rise condo apartments in the Central neighbourhoods have recently asked $55,000 per spot. At $160 per month, a rental apartment operator could collect just $18,000 per spot (before expenses) over a 10 -year hold period. In both cases, the potential revenue associated with parking spaces is well below the costto construct it. There are two types of sensitivities we can apply to this cost segment: • Like hard costs, the cost guide provides a range of costs for parking spaces, of which we have considered the median value in our baseline analyses. If the low-end of the cost guide range is applied to the Mid - Rise typologies, they still would not be profitable. If the high-end of the cost guide range is applied to the High -Rise Condo Apartment typology, profitability will decrease, however, it is unlikely that it will be to the point of being rendered infeasible on a scenario which is already feasible. This is because parking costs are a larger component of the Mid -Rise typologies due to its smaller relative scale. • Notwithstanding the foregoing, we acknowledge that the direct cost of parking construction, as well as any potential offsetting revenue developers can charge purchasers, is beyond the City's control. The City can, however, dictate—to a certain degree6"—the amount of parking required, which has an indirect impact on a development project's overall costs. This will be evaluated further when identifying potential incentives to enable missing middle and affordable housing in Kitchener. eIr;c7 i r diri.;iI¢or� cif rn 7 w k � 1I",uid + r I + i i�¢4,f � f I ,I ; w � � � (oi, 8,u & pli r,, i'�) I +�,�e 9 u�,, Wir I ii,i i�ra+�, 7 hi,rti , I ( ��s d n pi I apk„fi uq. 97 Page 162 of 601 Parcel In addition to the more macroeconomic and largely external -facing variables highlighted above, there are many other cost -related items for which sensitivity can be tested. This includes the overall timing to approve and build housing (i.e., "speed to market"), as well as the total type and scale of development permitted (i.e., "density'). Similar to parking requirements, these and other variables within the more immediate control of the City of Kitchener have played a key role in our discussion of incentives later in this report. Feasibility Profile: The Current Rental Apartment Boom Our baseline and sensitivity analyses predict that, moving forward, purpose-built rental projects will be challenged to generate adequate returns to support investment. So why are there rental apartments that have been recently completed and/or being constructed today across the City, particularly in the Central neighbourhood? • Planning for rental units recently completed or currently under constructed began many years prior. Consequently, the land accommodating these developments was purchased many years ago, and in some cases, these lands may have been owned for much longer, capitalized over many years under a previous income-producing use. • As illustrated in Figure 4.41,econstruction costs have increased dramatically since the start of the pandemic. Recently completed apartment units may costs as much as 60% more to build today. • As illustrated in Figure 4.12, a recent spike in interest rates is adversely affecting rental apartment operators, which can affect the cost of the permanent debt serviced by from operations -based cash flows post -construction (especially with heightened development costs). • Every developer has different goals and return expectations, as well as skills and competencies to potentially find cost savings that others may not. Southwestern Ontario, including Kitchener, benefits from the presence of well -capitalized rental developers that are able to operate profitably. 98 Page 163 of 601 i M "I TMOO. e -_W'"MR1410101 Key Findings • There are many factors that directly impact housing development trends, but not all of them are within the immediate control of the City. • In the same way that the current housing crisis is a function of multiple factors, so too will solutions need to be multi- faceted and varied in Kitchener. Four different incentive options have been recommended for additional financial testing and evaluation in this study: (1) Tax & Fee Deferrals; (2) Approval Time Reduction; (3) Height & Density Allowances; and, (4) Parking Reductions. Parcel • The identified "shortlist" of incentives have been evaluated against predetermined criteria relating to their Financial Impact, as well as Process / Policy / Market Feasibility to assist the City in advancing this "toolkit" towards implementation. • For maximum impact and flexibility in seeking to enable preferred missing middle and affordable housing formats, it will likely be necessary to combine— or "layer"—these incentives in the Kitchener context. • Common principles that the City of Kitchener can rely upon in future - decision making and prioritization of these incentives include: Flexibility, Collaboration, Sustainability and being Outcomes -Driven. 99 Page 164 of 601 Parcel 5.1 Context The following provides ad eta i I ed description of recommendations for the City of Kitchener to consider in its efforts to enable missing middle and affordable housing. The recommendations and insights presented have been developed based on inputs gathered via extensive research and consultations throughout the duration of this study process (and as detailed in the foregoing sections of this report)."' Below is a summary of the key contextual factors that inform the recommendations presented throughout the balance of this section. These contextual factors and considerations have been validated with the City during previous study workshops. At the end of 2022, the Province of Ontario introduced Bill 23 and Bill 39 with the intent of increasing housing supply in the province, including missing middle typologies and affordable housing options. Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act (2022) Receiving Royal Assent in November 2022, this legislation amends various Provincial Acts including the City of Toronto Act, Planning Act, Conservation Authorities Act, Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Land Tribunal Act, Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, the Municipal Act and the New Home Construction Licensing Act. Bill 23 aims to provide attainable housing options for Ontarians with a target of 1.5 million homes built overthe next 10 years. It is a significant piece of legislation that is shifting the land use planning approvals environment across the province. Bill 39, Better Municipal Governance Act (2022) Receiving Royal Assent shortly after Bill 23, this legislation amends the City of Toronto Act and the Municipal Act to introduce "strong mayor" powers allowing mayors of Toronto and select municipalities to pass by-laws with the support of one-third of Council, provided the by-law advances provincial priorities. The Province will assess select regional governments—including the Region of Waterloo—to determine how to extend the strong mayor powers to additional regions of Ontario. Inr.kjdIn ,I, P7 ,I�:',I +'_ru�rwIIf ,)&i � I!' (f , ikch7 inWe "�iu,vv a�a (� ',v , k h7+� p _p n � ,vilb1c,llh on3 pari , aVc ,o,i; l o r iauah.a[neo,pi � s� X71 ,rf'q,v+ '�I, % it, i'i�:9 100 Page 165 of 601 Parcel Policy changes stemming from Bill 23 and Bill 39 will have immediate financial, operational and administrative impacts on Ontario municipalities. The City of Kitchener will need to consider the impact of this evolving policy environment as it explores incentives suitable to the Kitchener context. For the recommendations in this report, an analysis has been provided for recommendations in which legislative change is expected to have a material impact on the recommendation itself and how it is implemented at the City. Some of the most notable legislated policy incentives include: Inclusionary Zoning A maximum 25 -year affordability period, a 5% cap on the number of affordable units that can be required and a standardized approach to determining an affordable price/rent for inclusionary zoning units. Streamlining Development/ Reducing Costs Up to three (3) additional residential units are now permitted on residential lands as -of -right without needing a by- law amendment. These additional units, both attached (basement units, upperfloor units) and detached (garden suites, laneway suites), are exempt from development charges and parkland dedication fees, as well as several municipal requirements such as restrictions around minimum unit size and parking requirements. Development Charges, Community Benefit Charges & Parkland Dedication Inclusionary zoning units, affordable housing units, and attainable housing units (to be defined in future legislation) are exempt from development charges, community benefit charges, and parkland dedication, while privately - owned -public -spaces are eligible for parkland credits. Specifically, development charges in new by-laws, as of January 1, 2022, will be phased -in over five years and reviewed at least once every 10 years, helping to reduce the administrative burden on municipalities while increasing cost certainty. Parkland requirements for higher density residential developments have been reduced, aiming to reduce the costs of new condominiums and apartment buildings, and the fee has also been frozen at the site plan/zoning application stage. Lastly, for infill developments, the maximum community benefits charges is based on the land value of just the new units. 101 Page 166 of 601 Parcel Increased Density near Transit Hubs Bill 23 proposes to create as -of -right zoning in respect of height and density near major transit stations. Municipalities would have a one-year window to update their zoning by-laws to specify minimum heights and densities following their Official Plan policies relating to protected major transit station areas coming into effect. Site Plan Controls With an aim to reduce the development approvals timeline, developments often (10) or fewer residential units are no longer be subject to Site Plan Control. Where a development still requires a site plan, site plan review focuses on health and safety issues rather than architectural or decorative landscaping. Adjustment in Upper -Tier Planning Responsibilities Numerous upper -tier municipalities, including the Region of Waterloo, are no longer involved in the Planning Act approval process for lower -tier municipalities' Official Plans, Official Plan Amendments and Plans of Subdivision,". Reduced Public Meetings and Third -Party Appeals Municipalities are no longer required to hold public meetings for each Draft Plan of Subdivision and can establish a public consultation approach that works best for their unique community. Additionally, Planning Act decisions are no longer subject to an appeal by anyone otherthan the applicant, municipality, the Minister, or various public bodies. Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) The Province has expanded the OLT's powersto dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if the party who brought the proceeding has contributed to undue delay, dismiss a proceeding entirely if the party has failed to comply with the Tribunal order and order an unsuccessful party pay a successful party's cost. Cultural Heritage Planning While the framework for the Ontario Heritage Act remains in place, municipalities will have a reduced ability to designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act. n, °y� w n O l o - 102 Page 167 of 601 Parcel There are several factors that can encourage or hinder development of housing typologies in any jurisdiction. Municipalities are often seeking the right balance between: (i) implementing requirements that ensure quality of output and cost -recovery for development; and (ii) creating favourable/incentivized conditions for industry seeking to develop. Aligned with the incentive types originally identified in Section 2.3, the factors identified typically fall into three categories—Financial, Process and Policy—and, taken together, impact the costs/revenue potential of a project. Many of these factors are inter -related and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The factors are summarized below and have been colour-coded based on the identified impact of each factor in the Kitchener context. It is important to note that many of these factors are out of the control of the City to change or address, while others present opportunities through the introduction of new targeted incentives. l k:.ury 5."l Summary of Factors Impacting Housing Development L�iiCr Illurmmlll �� ^�a III ar�aor�R oaiRdeior� x;81 gdrd�u,r,:�t UUrr � ° -IIJiq J)C- ",r) Construction Costs (supply and labour) Land Value & Availability un the Availability of "NIMBY" Financing Roadblocks Fees and Industry Permit Costs Capabilityd Capacity IAOTA'eraIle Ilirnll,ae>wca II adora scww hnrf oct :nr7 H 7 �,du!', lu_,frorc Wud oI rinwst idea rrifi 9 9&,p,➢" aaYB.'cfrh lu hc;�u.i I u an Uch rw Rent ContlY'ol, YlcgH l lowances Rate of .e., der, Duty / GFA Expected Return pmrrnIt a,d) 'Burne to Zor Ing and By- Approval Laws s (process deflays d ir,,,ffic;ierua, es) II Illigh Illoiinllpact l sigrigfa+_ +rut irdiPo a On B.@n (1nvclopmcnuI rn ,";:9&e! 'Hor ahl , h rn.'Jnij an f k to ,mcn These factors and their degree of impact were presented to the City of Kitchener for consideration and validation and have since acted as important guidance for the types of incentives identified and shortlisted for implementation. Shortlisted incentives have been selected based on their ability to potentially address—or improve - 103 Page 168 of 601 Parcel upon—moderate- and high -impact development factors. Ultimately, our analysis found that these primary factors hinder the development of missing middle and affordable housing because of their impact on profitability. Each factor and the impact it has on housing development in the Kitchener context is outlined below. 111111 I � IIIII I II °°Illu llllpa IIIIIIIIII � ; VIII � "Soft c o s II[ Projects incur numerous soft costs during the development process including consultantd engineering fees, development application fees, etc. III ��i�� u�.11l,,�I� ����: t II::::�'����� uiin an� d The demand for missing middle and affordable housing continues to grow as the city becomes an increasingly popular destination to live and work. o h...Pi e iW II x,11(. I i �', I`. u 1 11 IIa b J I , , �, ) ., j ,r Construction and labour costs are reaching record levels in the Golden Horseshoe. Though broadly out of the control of the City, this is an important market reality when industry decides where and what type of housing they will build. f.a(,i aI[i) e AvaIIUI1,.1 IIV/IodeIII'ate,,,� Like much of the Golden Horseshoe, land values are increasing rapidly in Kitchener. As the cost of acquiring land grows, industry will attempt to IIID°""actollI 's maintain necessary profit margins through higher development yield or density. Higher density developments have a place in addressing the City's affordable housing needs, but do not directly support "missing middle" or mid -rise typologies, necessarily. Ava: I a1H)I lLy af � IIn 1iC1111i�:.� Typically smaller profit margins on missing middle and affordable housing developments result in challenges securing financing for a project. 104 Page 169 of 601 Parcel U eE, 4DCs Ind IIIerlini Prohibitive fees and charges can deter development of missing middle typologies and affordable housing given their impact on already low profit margins. The City has made notable progress to date to make fee/charge exemptions for affordable housing projects and Bill 23 introduces changes that should further relax the fee burden on industry. N, II II fl II �:;� c IIS:, Public pushback and "not -in -my -backyard" (NIMBY) attitudes present challenges for development projects in Kitchener and other municipalities. While most residents are not vocal against developments, a core group of strong voices that advocate to their local representatives/City Council to avoid what they believe to be extensive or over -development are a barrier to development because of their ability to create process delays through legal/procedural appeals, extensive public consultation, and unfavourable news coverage. r-11 d" ,US�II" 1 7L I k. . 'a .l�b�:`i� f While the development community recognizes that there is a need for missing middle housing, there is limited interest in relatively low yield projects. Large developers building high-rise buildings are accustomed to generating higher returns (i.e., total dollars) and may not be interested in developing other housing typologies that would impact their profit. This lack of interest means that developers often do not have in-house skills and processes to deliver alternative typologies and models of housing. Financial incentives and risk perceptions of developers along with construction costs and market fluctuations prevent large developers from taking interest in missing middle housing typologies, as well as potentially investing in additional resourcing/funding to develop their capabilities. 105 Page 170 of 601 Parcel 111111111111 IIII 111111 IIII , 111111 actalr III I�° , �.. .J III �e tu�� ur n � ru Sa III e /[R�.�� urm��:.11 Until affordable housing programs (rent and ownership) result in similar or comparable returns to market housing, there will be an inherent barrier in terms of interest and feasibility to construct these types of projects. Zari'ihrig aa ° d I : .... � M, s The City's current zoning by-laws have made it difficult to diversify housing stock within existing neighborhoods as many typologies are prohibited. If industry is entitled to more development yield, they will be inclined to maximize the number of units in pursuit of maximum profit. Interviewees highlighted that higher density projects have a place in addressing the City's affordable housing needs, but do not directly support missing middle or mid -rise typologies. ....iii inn e to p I[: ur (-)Va, Delays in the approvals process can increase costs such that projects become unviable. It is important to note that some process delays stem from developers and industry lacking the experience and knowledge of application nuances and differences. Fast -tracking or exempting desired housing from process requirements or steps can help to increase project viability. Our analysis found that the City has already undertaken efforts to better understand its broad affordability needs and priorities, and has made progress by implementing unique solutions to address the housing factors above. This creates the right conditions for City staff and stakeholders to introduce further enhancements and changes to enable the development of the specific housing typologies that meet the needs of those who live and work in Kitchener. While missing middle housing typologies may be part of the solution, the City must also consider how to encourage and incentivize the development and retention of affordable housing units. Enhancements must consider the 106 Page 171 of 601 Parcel industry prodorma and how the City could help create conditions that encourage profitability and/or an understanding of the value of the long-term investment in missing middle and affordable housing. With an understanding of the critical success factors, four principles have been identified to guide recommendations to introduce and improve the incentive environment for missing middle and affordable housing. The incentives presented in this report cut across several different categories and are expected to have varying degrees of impact on the development of missing middle and affordable housing. In addition, each incentive will require its own approach to successful implementation, relying on different tools and levers to execute. Despite this variability, there are common principles that the City can adopt as it decides upon and ultimately implements the incentives described in this report. The principles are designed to provide City staff and Council with a clear sense of the "mindset" that staff and leaders must adopt to effectively enable missing middle and affordable housing, generally take bold action to address the housing and affordability crisis, and ultimately meet provincial targets for housing by the 2031 deadlines. Principle #1: Outcomes -Driven In the face of a multi -faceted housing "crisis" in the province, it will be critical for the City to focus on incentives that are expected to have tangible impact on the development of missing middle and affordable housing typologies. Each incentive—like any policy or process change—comes with trade-offs, and the City must account for whether it is in the form of additional administrative/resource costs and/or foregone or deferred collection of municipal revenues. Principle #2: Flexibility The City should introduce incentives and/or make change that creates a supportive environment that is welcoming to unique housing typologies and projects, and that broadly allow projects that would not traditionally succeed— due to one or a combination of policy, process or financial reasons—to be approved and ultimately be constructed. Needs will vary widely from project to project and developer to developer depending on a wide range of variables. 107 Page 172 of 601 Parcel There is no single "silver bullet" solution to address housing needs and gaps and the most successful jurisdictions have a wide-ranging toolkit that is focused on achieving outcomes, rather than rule-making and rule -keeping. As such, flexibility can be built into the criteria projects need to meet to qualify for incentives and in the administration of incentive programs. Principle #3: Collaboration Increasing the supply of housing is a priority for municipalities across Ontario and upper- and lower -tier municipalities are interested in and responsible for enabling missing middle and affordable housing. The incentives or changes pursued by the City can only be successful if done through collaboration with Regional partners. In the case of the Region of Waterloo, important commitments and progress has been made towards enabling missing middle and affordable housing typologies, and additional efforts by the City must be complementary and supported by Regional partners. The City should also continue to foster collaboration with the development community. The City of Kitchener staff have a positive working relationship with the local development community allowing for the exchange of ideas that supports the City in their pursuit of continuous improvement of processes to be efficient and eliminate wasted time. Principle #4: Sustainability Incentives for missing middle and affordable housing must consider the long-term sustainability of the investment. Incentives—particularly those that are financial—must balance the potential for additional housing with the impact on municipal revenues, the tax base, and ultimately municipal service areas. Incentives should also support projects that are expected to be affordable long term, for example, those undertaken by non-profit affordable housing organizations. From Guiding Principles to Implementation Following these principles, the remainder of this section presents two key recommendations and four incentive options that are designed to enable the creation of more missing middle and affordable in Kitchener. 108 Page 173 of 601 Parcel 5.2 Recommendations Two multi -pronged recommendations have been identified for the City to further enable missing middle and affordable housing development. cilirn .. o.. s )frnissinq nl)iddle arid )r Affordable housing is a priority for Kitchener Council, City staff, and residents, and the City has completed substantial work to understand and address affordability needs as well as enable the creation of missing middle typologies including: • As -of -right permissions for ADUs and three units on all serviced residential lots through new Zoning By-law 201(9-051e • Housing for All (2020) housing strategy; • Fee deferrals and exemptions for eligible projects,- 0 rojects; • Process and policy efficiencies; • Make it Kitchener 2.0 and its emphasis on affordable and attainable housing; and, • Backyard home design competition. However, the development landscape and housing needs of residents continue to evolve. Below are some of the ways the City can re -confirm and invigorate its vision and strategic approach to enabling missing middle/affordable housing. 109 Page 174 of 601 Parcel Confirm & Publicize Growth Targets: Missing Middle & Affordable Housing Bill 23 has set specific development targets for cities across the Province to reach by 2031, collectively contributing to a province -wide goal for the construction of 1.5 million homes over this period. The City of Kitchener has been given a target of 35,000 homes to be built by 2031, ranking among the top ten targets in terms of number of units. These targets, along with all the other transformational changes proposed in recent legislation (including Bill 23 and Bill 39) present a significant shift in the role and positioning of municipalities in development and growth. Previously acting primarily as approvers of market plans for development and growth, municipalities must now proactively encourage the volume and type of developmentthat will enable the City to achieve its housing targets. It is recommended that the City revisit and refresh its Housing for All strategy to reflect new targets - while the strategy remains relevant in terms of its priorities and content, it is now operating in a transformed policy environment that should be accounted for. This could include establishing an affordabled missing middle housing target within the 35,000 due for construction by 2031. Committing a portion of this target to missing middled affordable housing must be done with careful planning to ensure the commitment is meaningful for Kitchener's needs, but also allows the City to maintain its momentum towards meeting its target by 2031. Deepen Regional Partnerships Even in the face of impending change vis-a-vis Bill 39, regions and lower -tier municipalities continue to have complementary and at times overlapping responsibilities when it comes to planning, growth, development and affordable housing. The analysis completed for this project revealed strong pillars and foundations between City and Region of Waterloo staff and teams, but also room for improvement in how the two tiers collaborate day-to-day and strategically when it comes to enabling missing middle/affordable housing development. From a day-to- day/operational perspective, there are misalignments in process steps and policy directions that can create added churn and administrative burden upon applications/applicants (e.g., significantly different policy direction for truck turnarounds/the planning specifications for city vs. regional roads). At a strategic level, the City and Region should find opportunities to continuously collaborate to ensure targets, processes and policies established remain complementary to each other's vision for affordable housing. In addition to relationships with the Region, the City should continue to foster relationships with counterparts in other regions to ensure continuous learning and sharing of opportunities. Educate and Galvanize the Public at -Large Public support—or disagreement—about the value and importance of constructing missing middle/affordable housing can "make or break" a municipality's ability to approve and support these types of projects. As described above, poor public sentiment towards missing middle/affordable housing is a factor that has a tangible impact on 110 Page 175 of 601 Parcel the speed and completion of missing middle/affordable housing typologies. As the policy environment lends itself to change, the City should develop a plan for education and information campaigns to Councillors and the Public that signal the importance of this type of housing city-wide. In addition, the City should plan for project -specific communications that informs the public of the benefits of these typologies, and dismiss outdated stigmas or assumptions about higher -density housing typologies. Build Capacity of Industry Players: Non -Traditional Developers and Not -for -Profit Organizations It is important to acknowledge that there are individuals, as well as small and large businesses of all kinds currently involved in—or looking to get involved in—development in Kitchener. While larger -scale and tenured players can quickly pivot to accommodate changes to application requirements, fee and tax structures, and process steps, non- traditional developers - social enterprises, "mom and pop shops" that are small-scale in resourcing and volume constructed, and/or not-for-profit housing providers/developers who are working with relatively thin margins - can often get "lost in the shuffle". Currently, the City does notable work to build the capacity and capability of these non-traditional developers through an affordable housing concierge program. Our analysis reveals that this program achieves dual outcomes: (i) supporting applications to navigate the process and reach approval without significant issue or roadblock; and (ii) educating the applicant along the way about the process, City policies and the nature of planning decisions and why they are made. The City should consider ways to complement this program with educational sessions, tools and templates, process incentives (i.e., "queue jumping" for affordable projects), and continuing with technology improvements that simplify the user -end experience and optimizes quality at the same time. Deepen Industry Relationships The City already has infrastructure in place to enable collaboration with industry stakeholders. This includes operational items like application meetings, terms of reference and other tools that enable the applicant to navigate the process simply, and strategic infrastructure like an ongoing staff -developer committee where opportunities for improvement are addressed and actioned by City staff (i.e., when feasible and possible). It is recommended that—as these recommendations are implemented and Ontario's affordability crisis persists—the City find ways to co -design and collaborate now and in the long-term with a broad cross-section of industry players. Specifically, it is recommended that City planning staff and their counterparts in private industry (consultants, engineers, planners, market advisors and growth strategists) build parallel relationships to those between senior City staff and heads of key development organizations. These relationships ensure industry and staff have a common and consistent understanding of their working realities and can work through policy/process roadblocks that are persistent for both staff and applicant experts. 111 Page 176 of 601 Parcel Align with the Broader Policy and Program Environment As described throughout this report, affordable housing has emerged as a top -of -mind policy and program issue for all levels of government in Ontario and Canada. With this onset of financial investment and program change to support the supply of more affordable housing, interested applicants and municipal staff are faced with a patchwork of funding and incentive programs. In the best -case scenario, these funds and programs complement each other. In the worst-case, they breed confusion / more administrative requirements, resulting in underutilization by industry in the delivery of projects. In the selection of incentives and the appropriate legal mechanism for implementation, the City must consider how the scope and implementation of this infrastructure can be complemented by programs and funding at other levels of government. For many municipalities offering development incentives for affordable housing, applicants are encouraged to seek funding support from other government programs to make projects more viable. Depending on how Kitchener defines "affordable" or "missing middle" housing in the context of the planned incentives, it will be important for the City to align incentive eligibility and scope with existing federal and provincial programs, such as the Rapid Housing Benefit, National Housing Co -Investment Fund and the Rental Construction Financing Initiative. Recommendation #2 highlights potential incentives, describes potential legal mechanisms for implementation and identifies regional considerations where relevant / appropriate. Just as the current housing crisis is a function of multiple factors, so too will solutions need to be multi -faceted and varied. To this end, an appropriate "toolkit" of incentive options will be necessary to provide flexibility to the City of Kitchener in targeting different housing typologies and/or levels of affordability, as well as providing the ability to adapt with evolving market conditions and development patterns. 112 Page 177 of 601 Parcel Fiqum, 5 Unravelling Complex Housing Supply Issues with Multiple Incentive Tools tIICA" + 1111 ins + d I'll, 1'c + n I'dhi�_v _ VIIIIllt�" Ilur����u'rtuv��� li�icar�uwiv �,,, Ilurcti i'olut✓o''; ";ciur� , I'�rr+ � q �) iI�u Sla, tI+: 1,1 &) �i ria ,l r4, 1r d rwI Iivv,,r � �� i 'aha wri i• rit. i pti�;:��wa � urir,� r� rg, � „p.N� �l e r , r hr',,die d a(y r,d 8, alp he d'er,'r ka r„r ho ¢¢ hi:)i6r,. For the purposes of this report, four (4) distinct incentive options have been identified for further testing in the Kitchener context, as summarized in Figure 5.3. Evaluation Criteria Each of the incentives has undergone a detailed analysis to determine their relative impact (i.e., degree of change expected) and overall feasibility to help the City prioritize options for implementation. The methodology for this analysis—as detailed throughout the balance of this section—includes multiple distinct elements, which have been validated with the City over the course of the study, including: Incentive Identification & Description A broad description of the identified incentive has been included (i.e., "what is it?"), in addition to a more specific approach to implementation of the incentive for the Kitchener context (i.e., "how would this be implemented in the Kitchener context?"). Incentives have also been categorized into three types: Financial, Policy and Process. Feasibility Analysis A detailed evaluation and prioritization of identified incentive options has been undertaken, based on the following criteria: • Financial Impact- Building on the results of our baseline financial feasibility, supplementary sensitivity analyses have been prepared with the goal of determining whether the identified incentives have material impact on the development of missing middle and affordable housing. In other words, could 113 Page 178 of 601 Parcel implementation of the incentive result in: (i) measured changes in the developer pro forma to improve the viability of missing middle typologies; and/or (ii) the construction of additional affordable housing units or projects? • Policy Feasibility - To confirm the degree of policy change that could be required if the incentive were to be implemented (i.e., "Is the policy environment at the City conducive to the incentive?" / "What must change?"). • Process Feasibility- To confirm the degree of process change that could be required if the incentive were to be implemented (i.e., "What type and degree of process change is required?"). • Market Feasibility - To establish the market appetite for the incentive / change (i.e., "Has the market expressed interest in this incentive"?). What Does it Mean for Kitchener? Based on the foregoing evaluation, additional commentary and considerations have been identified for the City with respect to: (i) contextualizing the effectiveness of the incentive in a Kitchener -specific context; and, (ii) the relative merits of the incentive relative to other options identified, all things considered. 114 Page 179 of 601 Parcel 53 Identified "Shortlist" of Incentive Options for Testing Financial Incentive #1: Tax & Fee Adjustments • Exempt tax requirements for applicable rental and ownership development projects for the duration of development or longer. • Rebate or waive DCs and fees for applicable missing middle and affordable housing typologies. Process Incentive #2: Approval Time Reduction • Introduce further process change and improvement to ultimately produce a meaningful reduction in approval timelines for development applications, particularly those that meet missing middle and affordability criteria. Policy Incentive #3: Height & Density Allowance • Introduce further as -of -right provisions in existing City (and potential Regional) policies and by-laws to permit more efficient use of land. Incentive #4: Parking Reduction • Introduce further reductions to parking requirements to both reduce costs and enable more efficient use of available land. ,warc I oio1I mi: i ":i r oigyCcop 115 Page 180 of 601 Parcel Tax and fee adjustments are a financial tool to encourage growth and development of all types in municipalities. More specifically, these adjustments typically result in: (i) permanent or temporary deferrals or exemptions from municipal taxes such as property tax; or (ii) permanent or temporary deferrals or exemptions from charges and fees associated with a development application and/or permitting. The typical rationale for tax and fee adjustments in the context of affordable housing is that these changes will have a direct, positive impact on the project's financial feasibility and will therefore attract increased levels of development of eligible housing types. Tax and fee adjustments have been introduced in several different ways in cities across Canada and the globe. Below are a small number of selected Canadian examples: • The City of Peterborough's Municipal Housing Facilities property tax exemption provides full or partial property tax exemptions for up to 10 years for affordable housing projects. • In British Columbia, Victoria and Langford offer a 100% permissive tax exemption to not-for-profit affordable housing projects. • The City of Toronto exempts various developments including residential component of a building with no more than four (4) dwelling units, and the creation of one (1�ADU in an existing residential building, or a laneway suite or garden suite on a lot from parkland dedication requirements Scenariompact Analysis: Incentive Tested For the purposes of this report, three (3) types of tax and/or fee adjustments were tested for their effectiveness, potential limitations and feasibility in the Kitchener context: • For Ownership projects: property tax exemption over the course of development (i.e., 100% exemption during the period of entitlements and construction, which vary by typologyd scale of development). • For Rental projects: Ten-year Tax Increment rant (TIG)"'. Ingricw'i&, I i< 4u,re'ra7i cul hr I, mcinl uw, fiatuure i7� � cn�n, n�al pw_,pop Llyqua, aOvv� iwI, y d ac� win I u _,pw'L,r'�u �d8mlflw ropla�� n, .ri 8n cdw¢ rtrdck a P�w 1pI� IMyo i � r i ,i,lrgrP iso ida1-�, w d a dl,+ a. a r8ua �r{p , r ( 1 1� w L y r,iws � ph+ 1)noui 0 �:)I d i�O! r,,r, d:d dq �,)� �:� I ip pi: � h�111 lb + irc� 'n h � � � fli i�i Ly pr c,�,i, p o kl �r"w+ dopra ild and i L, p )M _dB,jvrair+i acI,, odcprnnI i, roof rod t:ci a d he 1,,,x anr �,!ni w'uf''' 116 Page 181 of 601 Parcel • For Ownership and Rental Missing Middle /Affordable Housing Projects: Full Development - , • • Property tax exemption during development does not improve any of the missing middle ownership typologies to the point of financial feasibility, even at 100% market rates. This is largely a function of: (a) short period of development; and (b) relatively low -value single detached properties. A 10 -year TIG improves the CoC returns of the rental 8-Plex and Low -Rise rental typologies to approximately 3%, in-line with a Government of Canada 10 -year bond yield. Some long-term hold developers may consider this financially feasible. • A full exemption of City DCs and Planning Fees helps the ownership 8-Plex enter into the low end of financially feasible, however, only at 100% market prices. The improvements to financial feasibility across the other typologies, both ownership and rental tenures, is not significant enough to make a meaningful difference. Key Question: Does it enable the delivery of affordable unitsi • Given that the exemption of property taxes on missing middle ownership typologies does not result in financial feasibility even at 100% market rates, it is not surprising that it also does not enable any affordable units either. • Looking beyond missing middle to the High -Rise condo apartment, a combination of stronger financial feasibility at baseline and property tax exemptions during development (as well as recent changes included in Bill 23 with respect to affordable units) could enable up to 15% of units as affordable. I I?'idl ' 11 J ^rIq s 1c,vdupm on i:IN i�,I�^s h_', r (cry ohk � n Idon Ia'fl Un Ii ' o V uI�r I&;do MIW &I ' ncn [vufihIo, ,inn " ckqmaIwnI ,!.an( %,)N i ,)d, e I unIh orld � +lu +Io &"q, I'InI h,i ci'`, �c0 ihW id, I,I rid C4 � 0 a) )I iw� U I�111. 117 Page 182 of 601 Parcel • Although a 10 -year TIG improves all of the rental scenarios, the improvements are not enough to enable any affordable units, even in the High -Rise apartment typology. • No missing middle typology across both tenures can support affordable housing as a result of a DC and Planning Fee exemption alone. • Similar to the property tax exemption during development, the High -Rise condo apartment could support up to 15% of units as affordable, in part due to an already strong baseline feasibility, if it is exempt from City DCs and Planning Fees. Key Consideration: Municipal Revenues & Finances As it relates to these types of Financial incentives only, a demonstrative analysis testing the potential impact on municipal revenues and finances has also been included in addition the baseline evaluations against core criteria identified. This analysis is demonstrative in nature and designed to signal to the City the degree of impact of the incentive on the municipality's "bottom line". It is recommended that a more in-depth Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) be undertaken that takes into account the various municipal costs funded through property tax revenues and user fees, once the City identifies its strategic priorities moving forward. For illustrative purposes, we have estimated the foregone revenues to the City from property tax exemptions, TIGs, planning fees exemptions and DC exemptions associated with the intensification of 780 potential missing middle parcels by 2031 (per Section 3.3). The full suite of financial incentives is estimated to cost the City between $2.7 million and $2.9 million annually, depending on the proportion of projects delivered as ownership or rental in tenure. Interestingly, we note that it is less expensive for the City to provide the full suite of financial incentives to a rental 8-plex—of which there is an abundance of suitable parcels across the city, as noted in Section 3.3—than an 8-plex condominium building. We note that a collaborative effort in providing financial incentives between the City and the Region (e.g., including both City and Regional portions of the property tax in the TIG or DCs) would share the costs to implement more equally, while unlocking significant property tax uplift. 118 Page 183 of 601 Parcel The municipal policy environment—primarily the introduction of Bill 23—has begun to create the conditions for municipalities to adopt tax and fee adjustment incentives. As described above, Bill 23 has mandated DC exemptions for eligible missing middle/affordable housing units, including defining the eligible typologies within the legislation. There is an opportunity for the City to consider ways to push beyond the legislative change. One example includes implementing a "sliding scale" of exemptions that progressively decrease in value/amount as prices and rents move towards market rates. For example, a development with rents at 90% AMR would receive smaller exemptions than a development with rents at 80% AMR per the Bill 23 definition of affordable. It is likely that the introduction of tax and fee incentives will introduce additional administrative burden upon the City to execute both from a technical perspective (during the application/development process itself) and an administrative perspective (to oversee and manage the deferral over the relevant period). There is strong interest and preference for tax and fee adjustment incentives amongst industry players consulted as part of this work. While the industry likely prefers grants or permanent exemptions, there is still a perception amongst industry that deferrals result in immediate, material improvements to feasibility. In pursuing financial incentives, the City must consider the careful balance between adopting financial incentives that can incite change but avoid significant negative impacts on municipal revenues/tax base. The analysis completed reveals that there are notable barriers to entry for both missing middle and affordable housing projects, which are inherently less feasible when compared to other identified "winners" and comparable investment opportunities. This impact analysis reveals that, though traditionally cited by industry as a highly impactful incentive, financial incentives alone do not necessarily produce material impacts on project feasibility and/or the construction of missing middle typologies and/or affordable housing specifically. While tax and fee adjustments can be "seen and felt" immediately by industry, it may not create the conditions for enough missing middle/affordable housing development to justify the notable impact on municipal revenues in the short- and long-term. 119 Page 184 of 601 Parcel The tax and fee adjustments mandated as part of Bill 23, and any other existing tax and fee exemptions in place by the City, may not—in and of themselves—be sufficient in terms of enabling missing middle/affordable housing development, unless combined with other incentives. Therefore, the City's focus may be best directed at combing financial incentives with other types of policy and process incentives to enable development. There is continued interest among Kitchener staff and the development industry to continue to find process efficiencies that reduce overall development timelines. To date, the City of Kitchener has done notable work to apply Lean principles to their existing development review process, having undergone a detailed process review in recent years. This review resulted in several important process improvements that are aligned with industry best practices, with a particular focus on simplifying, adjusting or removing process steps, requirements and/or tools to allow projects to proceed more efficiently through the development process. Going forward, further efficiencies should focus instead on identifying ways to help the applicant reduce potential overhead, soft costs or costs associated with time delays for a project. Below are some ways the City could further reduce development approval timelines, which can be further explored for implementation in the City context: • Continued simplification and reduction of mandatory application requirements for projects that meet affordability criteria. The City already has in place or is launching tools and methods to help ensure applicants are only asked to meet critical requirements that mitigate municipal risk associated with development. This includes preliminary meetings prior to application filing and an ongoing effort by the City to further specify their Terms of Reference for common application types; • Further delegation of authority to staff, including revisiting previously discussed opportunities like heritage permits; • Formalize the existing concierge service available to affordable housing project so that all projects that meet affordability criteria are offered this service by the City. In other jurisdictions, programs like this are often accompanied by formal service level commitments that are notably shorter than the experience of a "typical" application. This will require a detailed resourcing analysis by the City to confirm if existing resources have capacity to meet potential demand, and what adjustments would be required to build out the team; • More focused / streamlined public meeting requirements, both through opportunities introduced via new provincial legislation, increasing as -of -right zoning and Official Plan permissions such that rezonings and Official Plan Amendments are not required, as well as the introduction of additional policy frameworks to 120 Page 185 of 601 Parcel guide and permit staff decision-making in areas like heritage conservation. Policy frameworks that dictate the City's position should focus on balancing the rights of infrastructure seeking to be protected with the need for flexibility to introduce change through "gentle density"; and, • Rather than default to what can commonly be characterized as a "debate -based" or "negotiation -based" approvals system, the City should consider more templated approval systems to foster replicability in preferred housing forms. Scenario Tested For the purposes of this report, the impact analysis will assume that the cumulative implementation of process improvements by the City will result in the following approval time adjustments: • Reduce development entitlement period from 12 to six (6) months for Plexes; and • Reduce development entitlement period for Low -Rise, Mid -Rise and High -Rise typologies from 24 to 12 months. Feasibility Analysis • A six-month reduction in the entitlement and planning timeline of the 8-Plex helps the ownership tenure become financially feasible, however, the rental tenure remains challenged. • In all other missing middle typologies across both tenures, even a 12 -month reduction was not enough to make them financially feasible. 121 Page 186 of 601 Parcel Key • - Does it enable the delivery • •• • A six to 12 -month reduction in the entitlement and planning timelines across the missing middle typologies does not enable any affordable units. • A six-month reduction, combined with strong baseline feasibility, could unlock up to 15% of High -Rise condo apartment units as affordable. High -Rise rental apartments remain financially unfeasible despite the shortened timeline. The provincial policy environment has begun to create the conditions for municipalities to introduce further process efficiencies and improvements in several areas including development approvals and heritage conservation. Recent provincial legislation establishes several "starting points" for process efficiency that the City can either implement as -is or look for ways to go beyond the baselines or benchmarks set in the legislation. Within the City itself, the Housing for All Strategy sets the tone for continuous change to meet targets and the City's goals. The City has established a culture of continuous improvement as a result of work done to date to improve the development approvals process, which creates the conditions for further conversations and adjustments to all process elements. In a broad sense, industry players consistently cite process improvements as impactful tothe project "bottom-line". In some cases, the efficiency of the development approvals process can be a make -or -break factor when organizations are deciding what typology or scale of housing they construct. In other words, the more efficient the development process is, the more flexibility the industry has to consider including traditionally less profitable elements as part of projects (i.e., the difference between building a project with all market -rate housing vs. housing with a mix of rental or ownership structures that could include affordable). To encourage missing middle typologies, further process improvement must be implemented with smaller scale, less sophisticated developers in mind as they often require the most supportto successfully navigate the process. The City should consider education and/or capacity -building opportunities for these types of industry participants. This could include information/awareness sessions about the process and allocating a project manager/concierge to all projects that meet stated criteria. 122 Page 187 of 601 Parcel . -117111111.7-. - Although generally less impactful to development feasibility relative to other variables and incentive options evaluated, reducing delays and improving speed -to -market can certainly be beneficial to the "bottom line" of developers. While improved timelines are unlikely to "make" a pro forma, in and of themselves, a lack of speed can effectively "break' a prodorma (i.e., in the face of undue or unnecessary delays). More broadly, both public and private sector participants tend to agree that more housing is needed in Kitchener, and quickly. Continued work by the City to find process improvements and efficiencies is an important part of the "full picture" of solutions and tools available to enable missing middled affordable housing development. Process change may or may not result in further reductions in process steps or requirements, but instead involves introducing more clarity and more procedural tools (i.e., templates, etc.) that ensure depth of understanding between applicant and City staff. This means that resourcing levels should be consistently reviewed in the context of process change to ensure the right skillsets and headcount are in place to achieve the desired outcome of process efficiency. Height and density permissions can significantly affect the creation of missing middle and affordable housing by either limiting or allowing both where and how it can be built. For example, permissions may prohibit missing middle typologies in certain areas of the city and/or the height and density required to make it financially viable to include affordable units as part of a development. Increasing height and density permissions as -of -right across both land use and zoning regulations will result in a more supportive regulatory environment for missing middle and affordable housing. Three demonstrative policy changes were tested for impact: • Increasing the low-rise typology to six (6) storeys; • Increasing the mid -rise typology to twelve (12) storeys; and, • Adding up to 3.0 FSR to the high-rise typology (with an aim of enabling more affordable units). 123 Page 188 of 601 Parcel Feasibility Analysis - • I�- - • I i P -III• • • •• - ## •• - • The addition of two storeys (provided that significant setbacks are not required) to the 4 -storey Smart Density Low -Rise concept enables the ownership tenure to become financially feasible at 100% market rates in both the Central and Suburban areas. Although the financial feasibility is improved in the rental tenure, it is likely not enough to warrant significant investment interest. • The addition of six storeys (provided that significant setbacks are not required) to the 6 -storey Smart Density Mid -Rise concept enables the ownership tenure to become financially feasible at 100% market rates in both the Central and Suburban areas. Although the financial viability is improved in the rental tenure, it is likely not enough to warrant significant investment interest. • Although additional density helps the financial feasibility of both the Low -Rise and Mid -Rise typologies, it alone is not enough to unlock any affordable units in the scenarios. Furthermore, the Official Plan currently limits the floor space ratio (FSR) to between 0.6 and 0.75 for Low -Rise and 2.0 for Mid -Rise, limiting how additional storeys can be accommodated, particularly on smaller sites. FSR limits should be evaluated in tandem with any additional height allowances so as to not adversely affect smaller sites. • In order to unlock up to 20% of units in the High -Rise condo apartment as affordable, at least an additional 3.0 FSR is required. Additional density alone does not help the High -Rise rental tenure scenario, as the baseline analysis resulted in overall revenue -per -square -foot measurements that were lower than the corresponding costs per square foot. As such, there any additional density without some form of cost per square foot reduction would only result in additional losses. The municipal policy environment (primarily the introduction of Bill 23) has begun to create the conditions for municipalities to adopt height and density changes described earlier in this document. This not only sets baseline 124 Page 189 of 601 Parcel conditions for the City, but creates an opportunity for the City to consider opportunities to go beyond what benchmarks legislation has set. Changes to height and density allowances will require staff resources to amend relevant policy documents (Official Plan, Zoning By-law 2019-051) as well as conduct public consultation required of Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law amendments. More permissive as -of -right zoning and land use rules create the conditions for industry to pursue missing middle typologies and also enable larger -scale projects to maximize zoning opportunities. Updating zoning and land use for greater height and density permissions as -of -right positively affects the provision of missing middle housing and, to a lesser extent, affordable housing. Parking requirements are consistently identified in best practices as a "go -to" incentive to encourage the development of missing middle and affordable housing. The typical rationale is that parking requirements are largely unnecessary for urban environments that are highly walkable and served by higher -order transit, and that these requirements are now misaligned with the progressive actions of most cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Parking requirement changes have been analyzed and implemented in municipalities across Canada and the globe: • Portland, Oregon's Residential Infill Project introduced code changes which removed off-street parking requirement in single -dwelling zones providing developers and property owners with the opportunity to include as many parking spaces as they see fit for their project. • In 2012, Minneapolis, Minnesota's Council adopted a comprehensive reframing of the city's parking, loading and mobility regulations. This overhaul included a citywide elimination of minimum off-street 125 Page 190 of 601 Parcel parking requirements and reduction of maximum parking allowances. Minneapolis also removed minimum parking requirements for all new construction. • In 2021, the City of Toronto adopted zoning bylaw amendments to remove the minimum parking requirements for most new developments while limiting the number of parking spaces that can be built if a development chooses to do so. Currently, the City of Kitchener's zoning by-law focuses on a "fewer cars, more people" approach which includes parking maximum as opposed to minimum requirements in its Urban Growth Centre (UGC) zones, reduced and shared parking, and lower minimum parking requirements for most uses. Reducing minimum parking requirements to zero has the benefit of no longer requiring parking -related site elements such as driveways and parking lots which can "unlock" site area for additional housing units. For the purposes of this report, the impact analysis will focus on testing a reduction in parking minimums to the point of no required resident parking spaces. Feasibility Analysis • While existing zoning for missing middle typologies require roughly one space per unit, the Smart Density concepts for 8 -flex and Low -Rise apartments already include just one and two spaces, respectively. As such, there is almost no room to further reduce parking and the incentive has little effect on these typologies. In fact, requiring any more parking than considered by Smart Density will severely hamper viability of these typologies, requiring several smaller sites to be assembled and reducing the number of candidate sites identified in Section 3.3. 126 Page 191 of 601 Parcel • In the baseline analysis, the Mid -Rise concept is severely hampered by the requirement for expensive underground parking. Allowing for no resident parking spaces and only a few visitord service spaces would allow a Central area Mid -Rise condo apartment to become financially feasible at 100% market rents. The same is true for a Mid -Rise condo apartment in the Suburban area, however, this is likely to face a mixed reception from potential purchasers on sites that are not well connected to transit. No resident parking for Mid -Rise rentals does not improve financial feasibility enough to incent development. Key Question: Does it enable the delivery of affordable unitsi • Although the removal of resident parking for Mid -Rise ownership typologies is beneficial, it does not allow for affordable units to be integrated into the buildings. • Reduction—up to and including full removal—of resident parking in the High -Rise condo apartment typology could unlock up to 20% of units as affordable, again in conjunction with a strong baseline feasibility and recent Bill 23 changes. There is significant momentum in the public policy environment to holistic revisit parking requirements with other municipalities and levels of government encouraging and launching detailed analyses. It will be important that the City considers the varying needs of Central and Suburban geographies within Kitchener as part of any changes to parking requirements and target parking policy changes towards those typologies and locations that make the most sense. Policy changes result in inevitable ripple -effects on the processes and procedures that implement the policies and guidelines. It will important that parking requirement changes are mapped against existing development approval process steps so that necessary adjustments are made. Developers interviewed as part of this study are prepared to construct projects without parking and are confident that potential renters and buyers will "self-select" housing that best meets their needs, especially given the depth and degree of demand for housing of any kind. 127 Page 192 of 601 Parcel 117111111.7 The analysis above signals that reduced or more flexible requirements related to resident parking can produce material, positive impacts on the feasibility of missing middle and affordable housing. F � g w. r � :1 Summary of Incentives Evaluation - Impact on Financial and Feasibility Criteria Financial Policy Process Market Impact Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Incentive #1 -0 Tax & Fee Adjustments 1110 0 Incentive #2-. Approval Time Reduction Incentive #3-. Height & Density Allowance Incentive #4-. Parking Reduction Y � F) P o c C C SG /' Poi c � F � I i 'VlbdAerate FikoY css 11 VLD� key Fea!:;ibi1i�y High I qk d ell wp 11 h'T�mct P6 ; I'vocess, / 128 Page 193 of 601 Parcel Cumulative Impact: The Combined Effect of All Incentives at Once Whereas the financial sensitivity -based testing throughout this section generally focused on the relative impacts of each incentive on improving development feasibility in isolation, it is also important to consider the potential "layering" of multiple incentives at once. To this end, the following provides a high-level summary as to our observations relating to the potential combined impacts of all four incentives on the financial feasibility of selected typologiesd development scenarios: Plexes • 8-Plex condo apartment requires all of the incentives to approach 15% IRR, the "goal post" introduced in Section 4.2. • 8-Plex rental apartment is likely to remain unattractive with all the incentives, as it does not surpass 10 -year bond yields of 3%. Low -Rise • Low -Rise condo apartments with all the incentives could support up to 25% affordable in the Central area. Suburban areas could prove more challenging due to market desire for parking among residents. We caution that real world outcomes will likely yield lower affordable housing due to site specific conditions. • Low -Rise rental apartments with all the incentives approach bond yields, but are still "not quite there". Mid -Rise • Mid -Rise condo apartments with all the incentives could support up to 30% affordable units in the Central area. Suburban areas again could prove more challenging due to market desire for parking. Again, we caution that real world outcomes will likely yield lower affordable housing due to site specific conditions. • Mid -Rise rental apartments with all the incentives do not match bond yields and remain unlikely. 129 Page 194 of 601 Parcel 5.3 Guiding Principles Evaluation Separate and apart from the feasibility analysis above, we have also confirmed the extent to which the incentives as presented align with the guiding principles introduced earlier in this section. Incentive #1 ® While only capable of "moving the needle" so far with respect to overall project feasibility—especially in light of recent fee relief TX Fee Ad' encs mandated via Bill 23—financial incentives are universally well- received by the development community and can help inform more specific decisions relating to building programming (e.g., which building typologies are selected and what proportion of affordable housing—if any—is ultimately delivered). Generally speaking, these incentives can be especially impactful to "help along" affordable housing projects during the precarious early days of development towards becoming a reality. Although reducing timelines to approvals is unlikely to—in and of itself—tip a project in favour of feasibility, it is nonetheless important to be mindful of not causing undue strain as a function Incentive : of municipal delays, onerous approval requirements and/or Approval Ti e Reduction extended negotiations throughout this process. Simply put, even though increased speed to approvals yields just marginal benefits, a lack of speed can most certainly render a project infeasible. Incentive ® The provision of density is among the more effective tools available to enable preferred development of any sort, especially Height & Density Allowance affordable housing. In the context of "missing middle" typologies, modernizing height and density permissions to be more in-line with other growing communities across Ontario could have immediate impact on enabling both low-rise and mid -rise housing forms in Kitchener. For other "missing little" typologies, additional 130 Page 195 of 601 Parcel height and density is inherently less helpful as it risks fundamentally altering the type of development contemplated on a given site (i.e., there is only so much room to "maneuver" in this regard for multiplexes, accessory units, etc. before shifting a project into an entirely new building typology category). Incentive ® Parking reductions can have an immediate positive impact on development feasibility and the realization of preferred housing Parking eduC ion outcomes, such that they can be reasonably absorbed from a market perspective. This becomes more a function of the underlying preferences of households than requirements set out by a given municipality. As changes to parking requirements often fail to keep pace with broader consumer preferences, this type of incentive represents a "low hanging fruit" opportunity to implement change alongside broader cultural and societal shifts relating to automobile use, including broader changes in lifestyle preferences. Incentive #1 Whether they achieve material impact on feasibility or not, tax and fee incentives are ones that are highly attractive to all industry Tax & Fee Adjustments players, including those that are smaller -scale and possibly more open to constructing unique missing middle typologies and/or affordable housing. Process enhancement presents an opportunity for the City and applicant to work together on continuous improvement. In pursuit Incentive : ofEfurther process change, the City should work with all types of Approval Time Reduction industry players to ensure changes balance benefits to the applicant with the needs of the City to manage quality and risk associated with development approvals. 131 Page 196 of 601 Parcel Incentive ® Policy changes presents an exciting opportunity to think boldly about how "far" the City is willing to go to incentivize change. In Height & Density Allowance the spirit of being flexible and enabling unique housing typologies and specifications, more (rather than less) policy change should be considered and implemented wherever possible. Incentive ® Progressive and more open-ended parking requirements helps create the conditions for non-traditional housing Parking eduction typologies/projects. Incentive #1 ® The impact analysis revealed that, from a financial perspective, tax and fee incentives are not a "perfect solution" to make projects Tax Fee Ad' ust eats financially feasible. At the same time, the phase-in of government - mandated DC exemptions alone are expected to cost the City $40 Million over the next ten years. Further DC exemptions for affordable and attainable housing, Inclusionary Zoning units and rental housing have not yet been priced. The City must carefully consider the ripple -effects of the incentive on the longer-term financial status of the municipality, and whether the expected results will justify putting further financial pressure on municipal coffers. From a fiscal impact perspective, process incentives range in their cost to a municipality from "free" process change, through to Incentive : process change that increases/changes to resourcing levels or Approval Time Reduction technology needs. As has been done with review work to -date, additional process improvement in Kitchener should be analyzed for their longer-term financial impact on the City. 132 Page 197 of 601 Parcel Incentive . Incentivization through height and density not only improves conditions for financial feasibility, but also allows for a more Height & Density Allowance efficient use of land more broadly. This includes making better use of existing municipal infrastructure in existing built-up areas, for which Kitchener has surplus capacity available to absorb future growth (i.e., without necessarily incurring additional costs to expandd upgrade infrastructure and relying on previous investments to date). Incentive M. Similar to above, parking reductions can have two -fold benefit: (i) improvements to financial feasibility through decreased project Parking eduction costs; and (ii) enabling more efficient use of land and/or site programming on portions of properties that would have otherwise been earmarked for surface parkingd related access. Furthermore, it goes without saying that reduced parking allocations—such that they are palatable to the end "user" of new residential units—would inevitably correspond with reduced automobile use, which offers discernable environmental sustainability benefits. Incentive #1 • . For all potential incentives, the City must consider and align implementation with incentives/programs at the Regional level. In Tax Fee CiJust encs the case of tax and fee incentives, collaboration will be an importanttool for mitigating the financial implicationsto the City. In other words, the City and Region should worktogetherto determine how both tiers can introduce financial incentives and therefore distribute the financial risk and further align the work done by the City and Region to enable affordable housing. 133 Page 198 of 601 Parcel Incentive . While the City will continue to lead its own in-house efforts to continuously improve process, there is an opportunity to Approval Time Reduction collaborate with the Region on areas of process overlap to ensure maximum efficiency. Incentive . Similar to above, while the City will continue to lead its own efforts to change policies and guidelines, there is a need to collaborate Height & Density Allowance with the Region on areas of policy overlap so that there is consistency and cohesion (e.g., regional vs. city road truck turnaround requirements). Incentive . Positive relationship with developer, collaboration between public and private sectors to establish the appropriate mix or Parking eduction "service" level... 5.4 Mechanisms for Implementation In addition to determining the exact scope and scale of the incentives identified above, the City must consider what policy levers are available to enable the implementation of their preferred suite of incentives. Below is a description of two implementation mechanisms available to municipalities in Ontario when considering incentives to enable development: Community Improvement Plans (CIPS) and Municipal Capital Facilities Agreements (MCFAs). These mechanisms allow a municipality to provide financial incentives to support development, per Section 106(3) of the Municipal Act, which prevents municipalities from assisting development through the granting of bonuses. 134 Page 199 of 601 Parcel This section includes a high-level description of each of these mechanisms and an evaluation that defines some of the key considerations and requirements the City will need to navigate if they choose to implement them. Insights have been organized into three operational categories relevant to the City in their role as a lower -tier municipality: • Governance & Policy: considerations related to the oversight and management of the implementation mechanism, as well as how existing City policies interact with the implementation mechanism (if applicable/relevant); • Process: considerations related to the processes and procedures required to support the implementation mechanism (if applicable/relevant); and, • People & Skills: considerations related to the skills and resourcing requirements to support the implementation mechanism (if applicable/relevant). Part IV of the Planning Act (the "Act") outlines municipal authority for the implementation of a "community improvement plan". The Act allows the designation of a community improvement project area for any "environmental, social or community economic development reason", including building age or structural condition, overcrowding, poor planning, unsuitability of buildings or intent to encourage affordable housing. Designation of a CIP by Council under s. 28(2) of the Act requires enabling policy in the municipality's Official Plan. Based on the definitions provided in Section 28(1) and (1.1), a community improvement project area can be a single, specific property; a larger area that is deemed to be a desirable candidate for redevelopment; or even the entirety of the municipality. CIPS are subject to Ministerial approval, and the preparation of a community improvement plan is treated in the same manner as the preparation of an Official Plan. Subsection 28(5) incorporates the provisions of Section 17 respecting consultation and public meetings, submissions and comments, adoption of the community improvement plan, as well as prescribed notice. CIPS are increasingly common tools used in Ontario municipalities to structure and manage the delivery of multiple incentives. Below are some of the CIPs in place in Ontario municipalities, including a short description of incentives implemented via the CIP. Relevant details about each CIP have been evaluated for the Kitchener context later in this section. • Sudbury'': Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIG); Planning & Building fee rebate; Feasibility Grant program; Residential Incentive Program; Second Unit Incentive Program; "hitq pin , ,"A,VV, r nI n�~,,� � �,� ��,o,i ina+ , , p n n u+,I I I,-, n I ii,,ida J- I� i o u IrII it h� uayIn�JIanan�ral,,..'ani,cr e n I n 135 Page 200 of 601 Parcel • Peterborough"": Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIG); Development Charges Grant; • Cambridge": Fee exemption; Development Charge Deferral; Tax Increment Equivalent Grant; • Barrie''''': Fee and charges grant; Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIG) • Other example municipalities: Cobourg, Hamilton, York Region, Carleton Place, Blue Mountains Existing CIPs in Kitchener Kitchener has two existing CIPs: the Downtown CIP and the Brownfield Incentive Program (offered jointly with the Region of Waterloo). Both CIPs offer financial incentives to support redevelopment, though not explicitly for missing middle and/or affordable housing. There may be opportunities to build on these existing programs as an additional way of encouraging these typologies and affordability. Enabled by Section 1 1 9 of the Planning Act, MCFAs can be used by municipalities to create relationships with other parties such as public bodies, municipal services corporations, the private sector, not-for-profit organizations and aboriginal communities to deliver municipal facilities. Types of municipal capital facilities include, among others, municipal housing projects and recreational or parking facilities. As an example of this tool, a municipality may consider an agreement with, and provide financial assistance to, a not-for-profit organization for affordable housing facilities. Assistance for municipal capital facilities from a municipality can include: • Giving or lending money; • Giving, leasing, or lending property; hitvvv"a -d ii � J i a ; � ¢ " G I < ) i n a t � �:I( �!;hr >p+;,cl,ir� � I: •(� uiia ^rill `v�IgI��:,II,,� Ir 8&a�b i d a �C1� I¢ I¢ I¢ n:¢ r,'rf, IRIaF,1�� "', IGI� ) ) q II l ) W � p 1p ' h'iU vvow c or iLi �n/ � nrri..,3 Li ��'(A � � � ( 1 U r C � 1 �''', r,�aIi"f'i-onr ty 8r i r o v 1 ::gra+ I ' I )7 i I i � i J IItP ,vvvv"v �,ri� Ii drNIIH:,'I'Il wla4o ' I1" e_,C1,Iuan npNipy„"o,)oh&i`nr� o ) ( wiu+�rIL'' ( i P r I 136 Page 201 of 601 Parcel • Guaranteeing borrowing; • Property tax exemptions or reductions; and, • Development charges exemptions for land used for municipal capital facilities. MCFAs for Affordable Housing Prior to entering into an MCFA to provide affordable housing, a municipality must pass a municipal housing facility by-law. Such a by-law must include a definition of "affordable housing", policies regarding public eligibility for the housing units to be provided as part of the municipal capital facilities, plus a summary of the provisions that an agreement respecting municipal housing project facilities is required to contain. Numerous Ontario municipalities have these types of by-laws in place, including: Toronto, North Bay, Muskoka, Ottawa, Peel Region and Prince Edward County. Below are some examples of MCFAs in these other jurisdictions. City of Toronto Since 2002, the City of Toronto has leveraged its Municipal Housing Facilities Bylaw to deliver affordable housing incentives. The Open Door Affordable Housing Program was approved by the Toronto City Council in 2016 and uses MCFAs to increase affordable housing within the City. The program provides financial contributions in the form of capital funding, fees and property tax relief, expedited approvals processes and activation of public land for both non-profit and private sector developers looking to create new affordable rental housing options. District of Muskoka Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP) is a multi-year program that offers funding to eligible developers, builders, buyers and landlords for the purpose of developing and increasing the affordable housing options in Muskoka. The MAHIP includes Capital Incentive Funding and Landlord Rent Supplement. City of Ottawa Ottawa enacted its municipal housing facilities by -lay i n 2006, allowing the City to enter into municipal capital facilities agreements to enable affordable housing. Through the MCFA, affordable housing projects can be exempt from municipal and education taxes. Region of Peel The Region of Peel enacted their municipal housing facilities by-law permitting the Region to enter into municipal housing project facilities agreements. The Affordable Housing Pilot Program received $7.5 million in one-time 137 Page 202 of 601 Parcel funding for the period between 201i9 and 2021, made available as capital grants to the development industry and non-profit housing providers. The region has since entered into municipal housing project facilities agreements with three organizations. The projects received $7.4 million in funding for 130 affordable rental housing units. Prince Edward County In 2022, Prince Edward County passed its Municipal Capital Facilities By -Law allowing the County to enter into MCFAs to incentivize affordable housing development. The County provides financial incentives through MCFAs in the form of conditional grants or partial to full exemption from the County's development charges and property taxes. The financial incentives are available for the development of affordable housing if each housing unit meets the definition of affordability (30% of gross annual household income and 20% below the average market rent) and remains affordable for at least fifteen (15) years Below is a summary of several of the key considerations for implementation of CIPs and MCFAs in the context of missing middle and affordable housing. The considerations for both incentives have been presented together to provide a clear sense of the similarities and variations between the two mechanisms. Emphasis has been added to contents with an underline to highlight some of the key differences. Considerations have also been organized to correspond with the three operational categories identified earlier (i.e., Governance & Policy; Process; and People & Skills). 138 Page 203 of 601 Parcel 5,5 Key Considerations for CIPs and MCFAs • MCF by-law must be municipality wide cannot be aeogra�.�hicall limited). '"' • Requires a_Council-approved by-law that enables future agreements to be established with applicants i.e., defining affordable housing eligree�ibility requirements and key agrovisionsI. Ongoing interactionsd Council approvals not required for each MCFA unless by-law amendment is required., • Requires the development of eligibility criteria (to establish which project types are eligible for incentives) and evaluation criteria (to help prioritize projects with highest degree of impact. Evaluation criteria allow municipalities to have scaled incentives that can increased decrease based on the expected impact of the project on evaluation criteria. Criteria must be ,accompanied by informationd submission guidelines to enable applicant to respond to qualitative and quantitative criteria. • MCF infrastructure allows for financial exemptions from fees and charges • Can occur in alignment with and independent of Regional/upper-tier incentives but requires intentional coordination by both tiers. • CIPs can be designated as municipal -wide, to encourage investment in a particular area of a municipalit ay nd/„or targeted at achieving a particular_goal g.g,_, affordable housing) • Requires Council direction to develop the CIP, adjustment to the Official Plan to include enabling -provisions and a by --law designating the_project area. The established CIP must then be circulated to the Ministr, of�pal Affairs and Housing for review and undergo a public meeting no earlier than 20 days after public notice. Council must a prove the final CIP. • Requires the development of eligibility criteria (to establish which project types are eligible for incentives) and evaluation criteria (to help prioritize projects with the highest degree of impact). Evaluation criteria allow municipalities to have scaled incentives that can increased decrease based on the expected impact of the project on evaluation criteria. • CIPs can be leveraged onlyto�provide offsetting grants vs. charge/fee exemptions.'' • Can occur i n alignment with and independent of Regional/upper-tier incentives but requires intentional coordination by both tiers. " If'asial d ncrfl�:l 7+ tho uphpsor O w I�, I, 7, d J w o .pass hr ;Ia lkhP xl �o s 7 pw , h 9ihdh0,, Pdlo w d, pull dbouq: v,hoL k p omit n„6,fl is hucludi il wn S , o4 d1c, Iwnhe ] ",d, 139 Page 204 of 601 • MCF terms and requirements are simple to adjust. They do not require significant approvals or amendments to execute year -over -year requirements changes if changes _ align _ with aeneral terms of the by-law. • Process for project identificationd approval can be executed either through a program -style, annual call for applications or on a "rolling basis", as eligible projects are submitted. Annual, pre- established calls for applications create predictability both for the municipality (in terms of dedicating resources and managing capacity needs) and the developer (enabling preparation for known application timelines). • Municipalities are entitled to impose ongoing requirements on organizations signed on to MCF agreements. Requirements and restrictions typically include time restrictions (to begin and/or complete the project by identified dates) and/or ongoing reporting requirements about the project during construction and throughout the duration of the agreement. • In addition to existing responsibilities of municipal staff, MCF by-laws and agreements introduce new staff responsibilities that must be accounted for: - Time required to develop and gain approval for the by-law; - Time required to execute call for proposals and/or evaluate applications with Parcel • A CIP can be appealed by any individual who submits a written or oral submission. • Process for project identificationd approval can be executed either through a program -style, annual call for applications or on a "rolling basis", as eligible projects are submitted. Annual, pre- established calls for application create predictability both for the municipality (in terms of dedicating resources and managing capacity needs) and the developer (enabling preparation for known application timelines). Municipalities are entitled to impose ongoing requirements on organizations/projects approved through the CIP. Requirements and restrictions typically include time restrictions (to begin and/or complete the project by identified dates) and/or ongoing reporting requirements about the project during construction and throughout the duration of the project In addition to existing responsibilities of municipal staff, CIPS introduce new staff responsibilities that must be accounted for: - Time required to conduct consultations and develop the CIP; - Time required to execute call for proposals and/or evaluate applications with 140 Page 205 of 601 new/additional qualitative and quantitative criteria; — Time required to receive/review/manage ongoing requirements; and, — Time required for reporting, annual program administration/review and continuous improvement. Poic,11I raa i Sfir O y C:,;7q) Parcel new/additional qualitative and quantitative criteria; — Time required to receive/review/manage ongoing requirements; and, — Time required for reporting,,managing aappeals, annual program administration/review and continuous improvement. The preceding evaluation provides a broad sense of the implementation requirements for CIPs and MCFAs as they pertain to encouraging missing middle and affordable housing. There are several key questions the City must answer as it seeks to determine which mechanism is best suited for implementation in the Kitchener context and to begin to establish the key infrastructure that enables the mechanism to be implemented effectively. Key Question: How does the City envision scoping its incentive program as a whole? • Each municipality—regardless of the legal mechanism chosen—has an opportunity to define specifically what "affordable" housing means in the context of the incentives to be implemented. Municipalities have defined affordable in different ways depending on the core intent and vision for their CIP/MCFA, ranging from 70% to 170% of CMHC's average market rent for the geographic area. The introduction of a CIP/MCFA provides an opportunity for the City of Kitchener staff and Council to set an affordability definition that enables the housing typologies validated in this report. • For both legal mechanisms, the municipality must also determine the type of projects (i.e., rental, ownership, mixed income, etc.) that are subject to incentives, as well as what types of organizations may apply (e.g., non-profit, private sector developers). In most Ontario municipalities, incentive programs have primarily focused on affordable rental to target market gaps. 141 Page 206 of 601 Parcel Key Question: What eligibility and evaluation criteria matter to the City? • Both mechanisms require the municipality to establish eligibility and evaluation criteria to support staff review of potential applications. Below are examples of both types of criteria drawn from other municipalities: Example Eligibility Criteria (defining types of projects eligible for incentives) - Tenure (rental vs. ownership) - Affordability term - Affordability threshold - Target tenant mix/demographic _. Suite type/mix - Project size Incentives requested Example Evaluation Criteria (defining criteria to determine impact and prioritize projects)`'` - Depth of Affordability - Length of Affordability - Location Criteria - Features and Services Key Question: What controls—or "checks-and-balances"—does the City need to manage participating projects /organizations? • Municipalities have some discretion in terms of what application documentation/requirements exist for applying organizations, which will be derived directly from the eligibility and evaluation criteria established. The City of Toronto Open Door program (CIP), for example, requests comparatively detailed financial and project information (beyond abstract qualitative project information and an estimated proforma for the project) relative to other municipalities with MCFAs. The goal for application requirements should be to strike the balance between adequate transparency and insight into the project specifics for the City to validate the application, while avoiding documentation that creates undue administrative burden for both the applicant and City staff. I �.w ^ O'y> nn'in I oIso ,, p 71�Ii �;, 'po�n�" �::Ac fnw ,,eco,, nyew' IhI]1 ll+' :Igi ode � *IockiI: (I f � I a01;ti q ,!gra¢ P�� � � �, :,�-i,• mol:8,acm� 142 Page 207 of 601 Parcel • For both mechanisms, it is recommended that the municipality contemplate an annual reporting structure to confirm the continued alignment of the project with the conditions of the incentive and an associated non-compliance approach to manage divergence. For example, reports should seek to confirm: (i) the project remains rental in tenure for the agreed upon term; (ii) units remain below the agreed upon rental rates for the agreed upon term; and, (iii) the unit, rents and tenant incomes of all units that became occupied that year for income verification purposes (i.e., if applicable, per eligibility criteria). • As described above, municipalities must contemplate the approach to application intake and evaluation they prefer. Many municipalities in Ontario—for both CIPs and MCFAs—favour a one-time annual intake through a call for proposals, whereas others assess and manage applications as part of the typical project pipeline. Both approaches will require a redeployment of resources. For a centralized process, staff time and resources must be dedicated to managing the call for proposal process. For an ongoing process, staff must be provided the flexibility to dedicate additional time required to otherwise unexpected eligible applications. Key Question: How can the City and the Region collaborate and coordinate their efforts? • Regulation allows for upper and lower -tier municipalities to work together to offer incentives through both CIPs and MCFAs. In the case of an MCFA, Section 1d 0(9) of the Act enables municipalities to offer incentives through Regional programs. Section 28(7.2) permits local/regional collaboration for CIPs. Without coordination, interested applicants face higher administrative burdens as a result of two processes that will have inevitable redundancies. 143 Page 208 of 601 Parcel 144 Page 209 of 601 6.1 Key Takeaways 0U Supportive Conditions 0 Validation of Patterns 0 Risk vs. Return Parcel Many communities are grappling with the challenges and opportunities associated with the delivery of missing middle and affordable housing, but Kitchener is uniquely positioned to accommodate this type of growth based on current demographic conditions, land availability, development feasibility conditions and desire among both public and private sector stakeholders. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are notable barriers to entry for both missing middle and affordable housing projects, which are inherently less feasible when compared to other identified "winners" and comparable investment opportunities. Our baseline financial analysis largely validates recent development patterns in favour of ground -oriented houses and high-rise apartments. Based on the recent successes of other developer -preferred housing typologies, there is no escaping "first -of -its -kind" risk with respect to missing middle typologies. Private sector participants will naturally seek to repeat successful formulas, even where opportunities for comparable returns may ultimately be available (i.e., as a function of uncertaintyd unknowns that represent a material risk to investors). 145 Page 210 of 601 Parcel Similar to the way in which the current housing crisis continues to be a function of many different macro and micro -economic factors, so 0 No "Silver Bullet" Solution too will the solution to these problems require multiple different approaches—or tools—to "unravel" the current situation and encourage preferred housing forms. In response to above, a suite of Financial, Process and Policy -based incentives have been identified, which have been prioritized as follows (in order of highest impact to lowest im act). The most significant impact of these tools will be achieved when layering multiple options at once. • Parking Reduction - One of the most frequently cited, "go -to" incentives to encourage the development of missing middle and affordable housing typologies. The City should take immediate strides to modernize parking Hierarchy of Incentives standards to be more in-line with continued shifts in consumer/ lifestyle preferences, consistent with the demonstration concepts identified in this study. This could be most impactful in areas where existing and/or planned transit infrastructure is available. • Density Allowances- Increasing density where a positive revenue / cost relationships already exists (baseline profitability) can be extremely helpful in "nudging" projects in favour to achieve other identified city -building objectives - especially affordable housing delivery. 146 Page 211 of 601 Parcel The City should seek to amend as -of - right permissions for selected typologies to leverage these benefits (e.g., increase height thresholds for Low -Rise and Mid -Rise building formats relative to current definitions, as well as consider the provision of additional density in High -Rise contexts to support affordable housing delivery). • Financial Supports- in conjunction with the policy -based incentives above, the layering of appropriate financial incentives, as applicable, can provide additional relief to developers that encourages development that could deviate from typical patterns in the Kitchener context. In light of recent legislative changes via Bill 23, the City should consider going "above and beyond" these new mandates by introducing additional financial relief for specific missing middle typologies that offer the greatest opportunity for change (i.e., Plexes and Low -Rise typologies). • Process -Although generally least impactful to development feasibility, reducing delays and improving speed - to -market can be beneficial to all parties involved and represents a key point of consensus. Most will agree that more housing is needed in Kitchener, and quickly. The City should seek to build upon recent internal -facing efficiencies by enabling a more expeditious path to building permit issuance from the 147 Page 212 of 601 11 Focused Opportunities Parcel perspective of local developers (e.g., less cumbersome application requirements and other streamlining beyond the immediate purview of the municipality's day-to-day operations). Missing Middle The greatest opportunities for expanding missing middle housing options lie in the Plexes and Low -Rise typologies, which achieve a "sweet spot" of scale, efficiency and ease of entry to the market. Affordable Housing The affordable housing landscape can benefit indirectly through any form of increased housing supply and the continued diversification of the local housing stock. High - Rise built environments where additional efficiencies exist can provide among the most immediate opportunity to leverage the benefits of new market -rate development to help offset lost revenue opportunities in the delivery of more affordable housing. 148 Page 213 of 601 6.2 Next Steps 0 Take Action (Speed) 0Make It Happen (Boldness) 0 Provide Clarity Parcel Every bit counts and no single housing typology is capable of solving the housing crisis, so the City should take immediate action to encourage all kinds of new residential development. Conditions for financial feasibility continue to deteriorate overtime (based on recent trends), so speed will be an important factor in enabling both missing middle and affordable housing. There are immediate opportunities to set the stage for this type of change through pending updates to OP and Zoning in MTSAs. In the face of what most continue to deem a housing crisis, it is time for bold action. The City should be encouraged to adopt a "wartime mentality", to push boundaries and to avoid indecision—or "analysis paralysis"—in an attempt to satisfy all stakeholders. As -of -right permissions in zoning is one way to be decisive, with additional benefits to the development community. The City should clearly define and communicate what constitutes missing middle and affordable housing to avoid confusion and/or disagreement among stakeholders, including tying in to broader definitions, wherever possible (e.g., adopting Provincial definitions of affordability). This study has sought to advance these discussions, but the City will need to confirm and advance their own definitions, in due course. There are opportunities for the City 149 Page 214 of 601 IIIIIII���Educate m �IIIIIIIEstablish Replicability � °i Parcel to provide this clarity through planned OP updates over the next several years. Similar to above, education can serve as an effective tool to establish consensus, improve awareness and dispel myths at the outset of any conversation around missing middle and affordable housing in an effort to improve efficiency. This includes addressing often unwarranted NIMBY -ism, potentially exposing established developers to new investment opportunities, as well as encouraging the entry of new participants to the housing development industry (e.g., helping along new small-scale developers that may have an interest in delivering missing middle typologies). The City's educational planning videos could be expanded to provide a base level of understanding of land economics and how decisions about where to grow are made. Rather than a debate -based approvals system, the City should investigate more templated approval systems to foster replicability in preferred housing forms that are compatible with the Kitchener market. This has been a "tried-and-true" approach by the private sector throughout all eras of housing construction to achieve scale, which could be appropriately aligned or "right -sized" to match up with the specific types of housing desired by the City. 150 Page 215 of 601 Identify1 Parcel Notwithstanding the variety of both financial and non-financial incentives identified through this study and their relative prioritization, the City will undoubtedly need to take a "hard look" at their own finances to establish a clearer prioritization of missing middle and/or affordable housing delivery relative to other— often competing—strategic objectives. Where shortfalls are identified, a joint effort between the municipality and local housing developersd providers will be required to capture any and all opportunities for external funding (e.g., via other levels of government, etc.). Similarto other policy -based financial and market analyses prepared by—or on behalf of— municipalities, there will be an inherent need to regularly monitor and update the City's rationale for implementing incentives in response to ever-changing market conditions. Cities are complex, dynamic environments that cause development feasibility to be driven by a multitude of inter -related factors. This presents unique challenges to establishing policy direction based on a "snapshot" in time. As macroeconomic factors change, the City should continuously re-evaluate their incentives structure and/or preferences around the delivery of missing middle and affordable housing, similar to the way in which developers maintain "evergreen" pro4ormas that are in a constant state of flux. 151 Page 216 of 601 C) co 0 ti N N N Q v 1� =y N co N 3 o a 0° v O a c •!0 a a X m a° Mn m L _ N �; O O V4: O C U U O ...., U L O _ X N S /N Q i1 _ _ r N m O :5 0 T Sl � C n Q V S 4� N N N p +' +, N N V) U S O p O S +� L O V) C U— L +' U (D �B O S N • C . N _ ON S N O N N J :3 U0 a U S O a--� (DC O V L }' C N O S `'� O % E Q L U c - N ..... 07 M O N p L (D LO p O to N OX O M s -Q) N > O O i C + O O N Q u N .� N O S Q a > E N > p C N N N Ln s + Q X �O S N N O N Q Q N U E.� s L CD N O N L N N S O U N Q X O *' 2 > m (n E .L O U) N s O O N Q O N n N S �n O N (n o N v� N 0 N i U N 7L s -0 O O 00 t6 m in Q) p N L N Q to B N O N Q Sp 'U O Q C @ N (n f6 L Ul N tf N N O C N u O O u- N O S �n to O N S + s E O E C C L O } U ru O L m + S E OU N N O `� L O C)M O O s s C - � pu „ii =L N O O C U ( 6 O O L Q (Z U O L O > .� ca .� N [6 N o - ra 4J s L + � c Q CN C S Illlll1,,;uuuum O C (DC p (B m m 4J +-' @ N � Lf") `� p m (AN U U) =� O N U N L O N 4-7 N �O O Illlll U LO � u �O Q O c6 muum Q N m +s LO S Q CDM O E Q Q O Q Q v =y N 3 a 0° L y a O a c •!0 a a X m a° Mn m u 2 u qeo LO co 4- 0 rn N N N T x a1 41T N W N L � O v o � �p U � Q. � S L Q L O O N = O N O S S a--1 4-1 O U � O O S U U O O LL � N � vi #A O � N U � L N W u C7 QJ T L N 41 N L O N + O C:4-1 N -0 a) N � > -O E N O > > > O C + O O > O N U qeo LO co 4- 0 rn N N N x _LL u W v ,0 �p u Q. C L Q mL = u O O LL •3 C vi #A O W u C7 qeo LO co 4- 0 rn N N N � ■ ■ E 0 c � � & - 2 o N 0 % e C ■ 2 / JA JA■ ■ :5 M E- u u k » ■ M Sk \ m _ƒ ƒ ƒ z o } 0 Q { q \ \ 2 E < q 2 ® 0 ƒ 2 o ƒ ƒ m ® \ @ (D 6ƒ / ƒ / c \ ƒ \ / / $ % ƒ 4.1 \ / % / ? / 0 \ \ \ ° m 3 2 o 0 / / m \ \ § = \ u ? e » u \ ƒ ƒ \ k g 9 \ u gƒ % \ o d g' 0 3 0 0 2 . £ ± ® ® % 0 E = c / % / / ƒ $ ƒ E » o« ƒ o -J / * 2 / 3 j 0 t ƒ / 0 0 \ ƒ - \ / 2 / f ƒ / Eƒ ƒ{ u u ƒ . . 6 § y ( g e \\ E 'a ea \ \ \ = [\ 2 o o z c ; §\ y 0 0®® 9 a E 2 \ ) 2 £_ \ / \ � ® / ƒ \ g_ 2 { 3 ° - - a ± t ° y ° m .\ E � \ \ \ \ = » e £ ° { / '\ ƒ \ / \ G 'ƒ "® \ 0- 2 % ƒ > 2 Q) \ z o o E !\ j \ \ � / / $ \ E g \ o/ 0 9 2 7[ 2 U 0 [ 7\ / E 7 0 / 2 \ [ © / £ ƒ ® § / 0 2 <\ 0 /> 2 u G kƒ d 6 I\ U m � ■ ■ E 0 c � � & - 2 o N 0 % e C ■ 2 / JA JA■ ■ :5 M E- u u k » ■ M ■ e mo pm o <q S ƒ a 2 ƒ K \ » S� { ) % o g g g ƒ ƒ / § o o e \ s o $ y m E \ o c G ƒ - — 2 g \ ƒ / .E a 'u / y oCj- 7 e ƒ ± » $ •\ g £ 2 2 ¥ / G » s Z3 2 2 § § \ ( > g 2\ s _\ ƒ % x o { 0 5 %» e 7/ o e e o 2 2$ g[ ® � � �\ { ƒ c o » e 2 \ j m { / \ \ / m c a 2 c \ \ eE ° ® 3 = _ f§ /\ f 7 > 3 Q � Z z � 2 LL -i ta 0 2 2 L 2 ® (A_ C « © 2 0 4. � LL k� «_ � 0 � § § k x . Ztn � z O IL 2 e mo pm o <q (3 N H u° iv 0 w T O CD E O O) LO O C O O i X T i O Q O Q C O E U C LO7 O D U7 C U C C C O E O U X O (B O O CD O L C) co 4- 0 cY) N N N N n 04 C) Ln co 0 It I D, M mun uun sz mun ou n 1.,v s ti u n 76 S, Liu r 04 C) Ln co 0 It I D, 7 6-R go OR 0 0, ,0�011 'r - C) %0 co 0 LO C14 shun 00 simn 6S�, sim [,q spun Py Qy > siiun6,' IL, sliun 9E awa vin 9C L MR shun alk aU 7 6-R go OR 0 0, ,0�011 OR 'r - C) %0 co 0 LO C14 00 OR 0-1 6,0 LO 0-0 10 'ZT 0 (.0 S11- L9 ';LL Sil u 9 9 fCY s;!uri aZ I, t £`P shun skiun qqb sliun EV9 IIIIIIIIIII silun cqz ss! u n 999 'r— IN C:) 40 co 4- 0 p - C14 nD jz c) CU s;!uri aZ I, t £`P shun skiun qqb sliun EV9 IIIIIIIIIII silun cqz ss! u n 999 'r— IN C:) 40 co 4- 0 p - C14 PMO IS 43IM100M w > 0 s�iun Co sl!,r,og skiun SL L 0 Sd ah Ti fz E" 0 CD ("A simn 9S,/ �o Q sliunL6 r7 i ri sliun 99 III (13 0 Isliun Lee CD shun Lq sl!un Scj sl!un 02 IS 43IM100M ul I b ... . ...... w > 0 ul I b ... . ...... cii quil Jbz shun 9C sli,n bZ simn Ell" :,kiun Co,,. skiun 9L I C) co 4- 0 0 cr) N N N a (n 4- V) 4 � LO + c � � AD +-+ ru t 1� 0 0 Q U U U u u ,o 0 u _ _ " LL Q d fX LL 1 1 r � LL % Tx a) L4- a) o E J Q AD Q U amw N_ CNN� �m O Q ON > � a) >a) a a UO c ,a� a) c_ C `a0 n L —O Q) Ui O U iO 401 11 :1111, u a U u a) ) m U u 'm oLO � -Q � O 0 � Q a) a) — "N`u � ����� °� > V °� u > — a -- a -- V X X Ji 0O O p x Q U O p (D X Q u VIIIIIIII Ai c G S U O U HI! cc U to ,µ c U +2 fn ,:. L M � �-- yf i--� n � L' � O (6 (y)L S O co (Z 0i a) y a) L Q S t U � p ru tf Cn a O + cc) S u Q a) � U N O L v �' > S U Q O Q L O ° S Q Lf) rD • o uuuu > U +� 6 C\1 N U Q TN D a) V U) !Ql) Q } c n c TLC V/ Q) LIn1L lLl m > N N a) O a) n3 a) C Q) O Q) > O) L } — a) - S � O a TS a)~ s U + Q)U co L O' N t O V N a) O �l C n 6 C �6 n > Q) Q) Lo Q L U � 7 O ,> L O — � - O - � - N S G a) > S O n S Q o p Q O N Q O c LL Q) 0 U n u VIII n n5 Q p 40 n L p Q) O OO > M Lo (D a) (3) U) Q) a O S a a) � O IIImum cQa Q O Q a >O -+, LOL U � O O � i-- U O L > L a) —+ m ON U +O a) n SUO }NOL 'It: (D O U O c O Q-0 O (13 U of a) -Q U O , SM L> S/ � > p U a Uf (n 4- V) 4 � LO + c � � AD +-+ ru t 0 0 Q U U U u u u _ _ " LL Q d fX LL 1 1 r � LL % Tx I 0 C ESAM61- LO Lo 0 41 U Q) N (D U Q) t6 :E 0 Q) ',U 0 o > 0 U (D 0 O 0 41 x 0 0 U m Q) i, (D > U ESAM61- LO Lo ro m U ro u u u u u c LL 727, 1PMOco 40 T -4- U M ) culw CN M� uuuAl(� A c +� L m SII lil iu L L L N V/ IIIIII vI.u'mm'""I III m c 7 aU ������ � � +-, U ^^ O N D ��� �' L c uu!WM � N N ::44.- WM- yl'u'W. Pouf Q U Wt iiiiiiiiiiiijL p n� p In (D �-- % O Q L � � L s c ICS vV LII LII m O > O Cu LII Q V.;I m�li�' m � O �� O U o O An ,�W mi, O x N O O In L >l L In _0 } N In 0 c L Cf)' U 1..1_ a --U U O c s Q N a) o o s N L p O O.0 O 'L' x O O a) O Q)U nS } CIO x ILS -� M O Q Q Q O O U c o E p U c p U O Q •O 0 � aci o O o ,} o(D 0 0 = Q Q o o a) > O Z) uuuu 0 +' 0= � U) � Q � � E lullll } U p S i _j O(LS E c Q N O_ O c Q cQ 0 O O ... N> m p 1, p => Oc O c c CO N O n= s� p 4 c O Q O (L)IB 0 +, + c N _ C In M -0 O N i O CY) U c p L 'd U p } Lo 4� W I6 c- s +1 IIIIIIIIIII c O - c - cYi N 0 0 ._ Q O c a o VI. a--� � c � N OC'I L 1.2) > O l6 -0 OL LX � L O 07 N > c O N c > Lo N p � N L '+ c Q) -M" -M" � Ia C O p m c O a +, -R)� N L U III c O } •2 6 U L t6 — N O � O - N C 'I> -n vi In Q O � N > O N U In > -- CL � In An X O U x O N +' +' 'c _i N N � > L O U + � -— O N — N Ia k N x COL O L U N — - ' U o U) O dull ICU xxi u E 1. Y x c N x C C Q) SII' 16 p I$ L Q Q p > u u u louuulllll � �a"fIXZ�, LL %lTi.Z — V) u 0 O a RO TS O WOE` Q) L C 401 U_ (3) U x f6 ° ,.. ..... N Q) ;W O a) Q) fu O ru Ili u m � Q) U C 11V � QOf Q) Q) > �..� (6 Q V�Y' u y III Q) C u L Q C ,�.. x (1) -0 to nm � U O }! m O O � � L S u � C Cl)+�Cl) ° S L x G _N QFz :3 > _ a--� (n O O) cn a) n O n C n a) O > � Q) � i Q C in t•6 QC in U O > a) �O � O o C o O W + � n >N N 7 O a) Q) N ° Q) + N O ill ml Q) -aQ O cV — Q s D O a) N O C U p O U O Q O C M O O _ C 7C O L a C C L O Q) Q) Q } — co > L a O m Q) L Q) L Q) O C) (n t O Q) C = E o (n o C (B T L �H CD L Q (n o Q O ro 0T U a) VIII Lo CO C U Q) +� U ) -O � - Q) O C O O x o Q) LLo FZF c o 4E L I yW; I >C a — U S L � Q CCT > C o cp — U O � E (� . U L C U — •- U O Q) Q) � O U U U U C m c Q m - u p o O S U Q S U Q AD R l Q) Q) N Q) O Co . F: C C ra O (a i O i ° > > > O Q C 0- O u u u c C Myy%p"yR,/gypwyi CV h4R" ``✓�dr'p E- y IIII .� R�'4C,dw+.,&,d •� LL LL uA yG.+"' • LL I N Q) Q) U N Lel U O cn N 7 O U S N c (D E Q) 0- E E O U C O T U N S O O Ln T (D C w H V .V aIL a' 00 �co 0 LO C7 N N N L U U a 7 S O O E QLA v> plll 0 ~O -:5 U) - (D (D Q) C f.�.;➢ U N O (D C O 4- N U L a) i N L �2 j5 O � O (Z V) V O U)U C: M O O S U O N :30 N Q O i L O � O O2.1 U a� U O \ O E O u- � O .O 4. O S N 4 (n O N O — 10 v> O T n L x - Q- 0 O O L N y0 7 L O EO O Q— s O � O +� c O Q O U U Q D s D c Lf) N j (n STC U n \C O O j= N N O) N C — L L C S S C O O +- (6 S N U +, z N O U k O S U O — E U t O °' O N x O O c — Q) a ro � �E CL, � �-O S Li TV }.1 LL L s x N O 0O E 1 L (� C N .-u L O _ (o 6 O N S (B iB a) X p � E u �(V = O O_ O) O L Q U z O U U C C c6 4J t- m :3o _ N w H V .V aIL a' 00 �co 0 LO C7 N N N 41 I�v fu 1111 Ol O D- = (2) I'D cr) 0 O Qi O Le) LI) Cf) O --I- (n 70 M 01) Co m (f) 0 AnQ) x u Lo -+S E (nO LO =)07 3: An m Q L-� Q) 0 <to x IN O --z T CID 2!1 0 (1) E U) P > Ll z E o o S :tf 0 Q) c 4� 4- 0 (n CL 4� C) U a) Lo m CL m C Q L- YJ-- Q) - U) > Q) CL. Q) CL U —IDU An Q) :3 < W o (f) CD U u u Q) Q) Q) ui U u u CD RP -2 -2 -2 (o U) An u) a) An U1 N C C S c6 U U C Q) U C N CID i 7 O — (D c C � Q) IN u O IUI N ii 1 O piu — 1 U to S O S o u C ru o a) p O p O O C a) O p O IN N + > �_ p O_ .� s � O O Q) IS :3 a) n .+— O O E O O Ln U O u T p O mu p > CO (� - •�_ E .O N o � U [6 � E i x � O ° C •� a) N U7 (n pi U a) U7 to a) a) a) _Lo a) (n C6 fn i O IN a) N O— O n a) a) 1-2 O }T o O f a) C p c O S U a) S a) Illlm N a) (6 T{ (n U Lr)CD a) O S m ` a) :3C O 0 a) �� — N n U U � U + O E O U Q) s N ID p O C O s n W U LO N > c N O O Q a) n (D— N ) a) +� +-+ cn S C _ T o > a) AD 07 O — c O c c c + ro c p U IIIIIII O O — � N O +, ca t C — '� + � c — O � M N U Q Q } � Vi a) >p L y O Q ON N c6 O O U � ul N a) S � a, 7) . m m LU -m ° O u m a) c O U vi w + c p � +� c c c c c c �, L C O +� c O (n O) U) —_ O_ O a) +, 1) \c co LC 07 O7 — cn O O � ' O Q S + O c6 c: c U O O 0) OiO pL n7O cn —+ Ua)O > U a O N p > IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII +' S N C Q cn S S to u) a) An U1 N C C S c6 U U C Q) U C N CID i 7 O — (D c C � Q) ,a u CL a C) co 4- 0 00 cr) N N N n C6 L D n ow U As 'r— C:) co 4- 0 0 rn cr) N N N C) M N H U M C H N c N c6 CC) L 0 Q) Q) VI O M...) 9p W co U L U) . . . . . . . . c c 3 3 0 0 N N N N N N N U U d J J J J0 N N M M N N N U U U U U II O 41 M X � ° m E -,o a) "0 0 co 4- 0 r 4— O O > V i� ori N J d!k U 06 C � ~ O fn rle^ CB.P •� QJ O ray: O 0 O � P N � a o c n q ) > + a _CL >, c ++ N U o i tb \ O O N + O rC6 N + O_ � c N O o N LL LL c o C � U c 00 ow I N �A'P p � � + > N ° s _O � c N o *' o O N U JJJyJJJJIIrfrf�� � u N � o p Iliifffjll s 0 O �����Uj, N Z H s LL f� f� Q E N ,llr1171 3 c O Q N c C M N (� i V O U) P/ljjjjju jjjj d O m G d! d O tyo CO( N M t Q U 2 cn d W U 'r - r4% o Nco 0 N N N N .0 y ■ c ■ 0 00o nm o ,q »q 2 m a O m= 2 n O z o 0 * \ \ / f § / ! 7 Z5 c \ 2 c ■ * a00 / ± \ \ -0,0 2 % ± o / £ g o o . 9 \ / 9 x / \ � � m § ° 2 / [ o% ( o m LL / e D- / m + 4 / c 7 < \ O / z O a 0 n ! E 7 o Ln.. co » e = rƒ % / / \ e 4A ) ■ 0 �. \ Q. k ■ _ k f E t v ƒ 3 § 2 z / 2 U ¢ $ c § - @ w 2 g o ot e Ir LOQ LU 0 ƒ D u 00o nm o ,q »q 2 m a O m= 2 n o, o Nco T-4- M O O c d O O M O O i O T N 'T +' b4 O T N N aROo T p LnO O Z5 + Q C IA u c4 O o N N U V= N N QN G s G .0 m X41 Z = V1 c £ N 4! 7 _ v > I, 7 cM � � + CD o o 00 EA E M a to +j N 41 O C O O EC) T O— v ^� O N � U EF? (6 °� > Q C G *' N H 01c u (D O NttT o N (fT J C 6 o + O N 0 n CN N O E6 } U <fl O U -0 2 n �_ O U N o U (n N G U (A M O �j c d O O M O X i O T N 'T 10 b4 O IA 41 _ N aROo X i T O s N M U � v' >+ ui c 0 3 m m �, o at *' w +� s U 1�1 � opo co r'4 - V o � N O W rb C Gl O: ur Cl t Y � CI Ck" o � � N 69 N O � }; tri i> j S / / H L. O (17 IM�.5 Cl t 0 y y va y L o M G1 O 45 } m 4. U -)U oo 1 N C M 4 2:1 s CD Ln .0 <10 d x VIIII„ u = CL ZI + o o N y CD 41 on O u ° o O o 10 Ln U fl. o �O + O O + O CLH o o M C E N M o LL �_ L � cn o \ >' (,n N � i H o L U-) ILU d x p $ U O N C:N N O U O O o Efl U Efl (6 i Ef? bl? U 0 U O �O O 0�0 s Q E (n U O i N y O y a N c p C. u y U = L t N uu o% Z W � Q U -1 2 cn a w U \ 0 ®° / c � E + Ln 0 ® 1 CD 0 § 0 / \ 0 g \ \ [ e / + J % J 0 / M c 2 R 1 \ ? NCO,5 m / /% / m m ° 10-0U m d ± _ c o C 0 ? G#/= bq \ / \ q \ § o / o � s / e+ Ln � =_ G , s \ / tA o � ƒ @ \ < m % 7 0, 0 f \ ■ 2 ©2 % Z � c > w M � _ k § U ƒ 2 § u 41 2 � / ¢ $ � w. 2. \ w 2 y f A U "I .0 � c k �o 00m . c ■ © ƒ . g u © � o ..z `® 2 7 / c e ƒ + / co � . p- c ° / 0 \ ƒ c+ \ �CIA It / O a m ? / \ \ / +© u \ g Lo \ \ ` a C c ■ »q % / / \ / % < \ g \ . 6 / 2 m � ■ 2 » O � k 2 E � 2 U 2 M / �. v . $ �. 2 � 25 \ ; % = \ 2 � c / . \ � o « : 2 « o: x � � z { % U � c ■ © ƒ . g u © � .r00 2 7 / c e ƒ + / co � 7 = m o + J a y CD \ o ma/ \ / o \ \ q \ c ° / 0 \ ƒ c+ \ �CIA 2 a Z53 E e y / _ o / \ \ / O a m ? / \ \ / +© u \ g Lo \ \ ` a C c ■ ? a p o CD CD % / / \ / % < \ g \ . 6 / C7 L ^ a . 3 \$ Lo W -0§ X X. d ■ 2 : \ t � k 2 E � 2 U 2 / 0 U 2 z / 2 Q 4-' 0 �. v . $ �. 2 .. 7 at 25 u 9 g w U \� .. 00m � . � ?3y 0 / 7 = o o + J ^1 CD / » 7 � / q §� CD2 ■ > « \\ °a / 0 2= % / > 2 2 2:,% Z5 E e e + o ƒ \ s/ % / � u 0 I n/ a m z \ O + / /, ' 7 \q / 2 U $ \\ / o co @ 0 / � - o at % a m �o 00m . o ?3y 2 E w Q ■ 2 @ w . 00 7 = o o + J ^1 CD / » 7 � / q §� CD2 ■ > « c © - E U °a / 0 2= % / > 2 2 2:,% Z5 E e e + o ƒ \ s/ % / � u 0 I n/ a m z \ O + / /, ' 7 \q / 2 U $ »q / o co @ 0 / � - o at % a m 2 m � » O ? % . : % \ ; / 0 \ ; } % : ± « o: x % / z % / . ƒ g u © d§? / ± / C-4 N a= 3 'E LO0 r _ % s z 2 tn 2 E w Q ■ 2 @ w 2 7 / c ° 0-0o E/ + § \ J& / \ / : \ m 7 = o o + J ^1 CD / » 7 � / q §� CD2 ■ > « c © - E U °a / 0 2= % / > 2 2 2:,% Z5 E e e + o ƒ \ s/ % / � u 0 I n/ a m z \ O + / /, ' 7 \q / 2 U $ CL s e » �. u ' © �. 2 / o co @ 0 / � - o at % a m 'x n g 4 £ x% / . % w / % m k u . 9 U T— 4- riI Imo" � 4— V O 6, N N 4l 09 S ::t Y CI.> Ck" > _ m _ � P d Q .2- c 3 O CIY S u > CI.> Cay a u� 0 y� m 10 L40 _ c CL 7 co s 0 Z5 CD O = C m a' O i 7 C + C y r6 N 1 op CL O i oCD LO J U o CL + pp + p + U t Ln IIIIII�I C y. C) 7 T N 7 CO [L _ +� c `� +- U cn c 00 G o c 00 CD C:N c 3 o bq ° bq (D C bq � ° O N O O ulllllll £ G a y 111111 I" ^ t y E y IIIII��°klll���l��l;ll s > Q p 3 y M Z w � Q U - 2 cn �'' w U N O I�IT" 00 4- 4- CD LO b [aaaaa �u �� a r fb 4l 09 S Y ::t nd CI.7 � CL> Ck" {y EA l j u> U) CL 3 O „ ::3 S u > CI.3 Cy a v� 00 oso v� 00 + 0 +, T EL C!] O O L O Ln O c6 Z510 d Co x T co Z) C: + - C o b9 Ol O .� 1 y i o NIz o c 2 o L J u LO N o r� l U M o IIIII�II N M (D E +' o LL V U y 0 \ N O O = o+ T (5 p o C/) co .0 o N 00 T 0 L.L. p 10 U) chi Z) Ln Lo U) Lx N� 310 o0 $ 'o CD bq cN ° b, (D C � b, ° o u O III W M C £ O ^ N ++ ^ Z y Ud = 4! +' +; y v*'i +y+ U U 7 C v� O y y N c d cr ±' O ISA N M O to N to > Q O U J to 2 (A G1 �� L 3 a W m u > "o VIII !!!![j 0 C O V1 > 0 CL 0 c Q) 41 >, — Lo 0 D c CD b", 10 zi 00 + 72 D u NM -0 4-j 0 C\J (0 -- ONO, u 100, C) c Lr) c C\J 0 LO c u co l< c U o LO + o 0 + O+ u C + in -0-0 CD E 41 Cq LL -6 C) :3 2:1 l6q V) U IA cn CD co IL -0 c U can 3m 0 4- (1) 4- 0 0 U) 2 (D U) 10 0 -.P C: -0 c < -C 0 C\j C: in t — co 0 U CO 0 to L) t,q (D C 1.17 U N O 0 E 0 C 4A E fu - Z (A u ILI It" E 4� v c M 0 (n eo CD u 0 �y3 �LI > a) 0- 4-- 45 C-0 w N 41 > 0 m 0 M .64 —j u (A at Lu u 'r - C) co co Wm' 4- 0 C) co 4- 0 N LO N N N n N co co 0. N o N R ()% It Ln R 0 P, of �o V 44 q C14 tA - W r% �10 40 O 0� cm -4 co 0 co Lo LOco N N co 6 T -f a �o r: P co N > 'Ll An An An 44 44 00 10 10 cli LOT C" b9 bl3 bl) b9 C .2 E (D W to to to 119 00 (N ri 't CD 'T cc� "Ci I"! M 'T 't m 00 4-4) to O CL do do x rn OD (> m ol ol (> Q LL LO 10 bq Efl bl) bfl 69 C co c cli (> C11 'T ol01 � E C) n NU) u yi > x � 10 ID U c 0 O. 00 OD r, OD C4 bl) cl� Izi b9 cl� U'� Ln b9 LU ID %4— 0 u 4� IL 0 U 0 E (D C7) c 0 Z CD 4b u U) 416'869'8264 25O'#22l'TmUmm,io'�1,13H3E5 �� Page 254 of 601 a it H�ousiing, Gain 1 21For, every l unit lost to d�emolition,, 47 are bu�ilt in Kitchener. O 00000 00000 (3(3(3(3(3 (3(3(3(3(3 (3(3(3(3(3 0(3(3(3(3 (3(3(3(3(3 (3(3(3(3(3 (3(3(3(3(3 (Be Source: City of Kitchener Page 256 of 601 Traffi�c Impactsi 2 6-� T'h�is diagram illustrates how transit oriented d�esign impacts than a similar, number of units in a low-r,ise it Transit � — 0riie n e d immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmt�,m�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I END DesignI IRA IM H j Low rise I �I Subdivision I� .�� I I IM W MR I IN IW I I I IIm MI -14 .�.-------------------- - - - - - - Source: City of Kitchener Page 257 of 601 07inancial Susitainability3 .�" "* 'Nhw,1 High-density infill generates a similar, amou�nt of r,evenu�e for, th�e City as costs far, less to operate. Thils is a key ato keep our propertyai N service levels h�i,gh�. Source: City of Kitcheneir Page 258 of 601 Low -Density High -Density IPeople/Units 7'9 /494 '790/494 ILa nd Area Used 32 hectares rye's 0.3 h ecta res Unear lnfrast a ture 4,400m 531m ILife Cycle Cost $22,000,000 $265,0 "fax (Revenue $1.2m/yr (est) $1.5m/yr (gest) Source: City of Kitcheneir Page 258 of 601 uosit ■ building.T'h�ese are the relative costs of a typical cond�ominiu�m apartment (Developer (Profit 9-12% Soft Costs 12-20% (Land Cost 20-25% r't Charges 27% istrwction 4S% Source:Alltus Group, March 2022, Toronto Page 259 of 601 Lost Farmland 11111 FM li i over,since 1941,, inclu�d�ing acres between 1996 and 2:016, the most of any Canad�ian province or, Lost Farmland, 96-2016 Kitchener 1,500,000 acres 33,810 acres Source: National observer Page 260 of 601 4ousehold Eneirg,y U�siei 21 41 Total energy u�se r d�ifferent types of h�ome. T'h�e left ba represents th�e energy used by th�e building, right' we represents energy used for, transportation. I Sing 237 Page 261 of 601 GH�G Em�iss,ions, emissionsIn 2015,, near,ly h�alf of all relatedWaterloo Region were caused by fossil fuel emissions transportation. 7% Workplace Source: ClliimateA►ctiionWR. Page 262 of 601 4 GH�G Reid�uction P,oteintial Researcher's analyzed 700 clities to i policies can red�u�ce carbon footprints. Infill • policies impact.th�e biggest L111 1,11 1 1 Source: Cool Clliimate Network, 2018 Page 263 of 601 Current Growth l T'h�e province req�u�ires Kitchener, to plan for, 3,500 new h�omes per, year'. We have averaged 488 per, year, past 3 yea r's. 0 Source: City of Kitchener N kly*�rlklcl1 Page 264 of 601 '-Aistorical Growth 2 -1 14i� T'h�e province req�u�ires Kitchener, to plan for, 3,500 new h�omes per, year'. We have averaged 48 per, year, over, past 5year's., 2.,145 overthepast1O year's and 1,,8 67 past 20 2017 - 2021 2022 - 2031 2012 - 2021 II I Source: City of Kitchener Page 265 of 601 Room to Grow 3 -114i� T'h�ere are over, 100 acres of paved surfaces in Kitch�ener*s Major Station Areas, surface parking w Source: City of Kitchener Page 266 of 601 Waterloo Regiod�ing fewer capitah�omes per, an we used t a other, cities on Calgary Oshawa Vancou.uly er IEd mointoin 41111 0-0 Waterlog Region 0-10 IlHalliffax. St. Jolh n'a 11111P Toronto,� webs ,ec Victoria Trois-Rivieres IlHam Ilton, Saskatoon St. Cath erinies SIV Greater Su.udblu 1 - I Source: CHMC Scss, StatCam Tablles 17-'10-0135, 17-10-0039 Page 267 of 601 Where Growth ■ r.w d�evelopment in our we.... Transit wetion we we place. generally and weUrban Centre. a Source: City of Kitchener Page 268 of 601 Growing Fast 6 lj� Kitchener is a top -5 fastest growing percentagecity in Ontario when measured either, by growth o► growth (from► Community PPII Change % Change Toronto +69,736 +2.36% Brampton +25,013 +3.47/ Ottawa +1 9,342 +1.84% London +13,268 +3.05% Hamilton +9,598 +1.63% Vaughan +5,766 +1.73% Windsor +5,239 +2.23/ Waterloo +5,051 +4.07% Oshawa +5,020 +2.75% Source: StatsCam Page 269 of 601 Housing ai i of !► ons and are more th�an 3x higher, th�an th�e 2000 Canada !!i Source: Federal Reserve Bank of[ alllla Page 270 of 601 Mortgage average mortgage payment increased by 40% in ju�st 2022, and by well over, 0%since 2016. 2,( Source: Redfiin amallysiis of MLS plata Page 271 of 601 r CM HC reports Kitchener's vacancy rate at Yo .9 below the Ontario average of 1.8% and far, belowa 'h�ealth�y'vacancy rate of 3% to z 11 A► "HeaIthy" Fate Kitchener Source: CMHC, October 2022. Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario Page 272 of 601 r I ■ T'h�e vacancy rate in Kitchener is lo and decreasing. condoi lower, vacancy th�a p converging.are M 4% RM M 4 4 IPwrpose (Built (Rental Condominium IRental Source: CHC Page 273 of 601 a ar � r.. Rents Rent in Kitchener is u�p 28.2% in the �r est eincrease among mid-sized markets in Canad�a. Jam 2023 Annual ual Change [I] Kitchener Source: lie m to ll s.c a 007 Page 274 of 601 6 tt,ecre sing, H�ousiing, ■ or 0r-"riceisi From Feb. "22 to r housing prices rfollows between Dec. it MMB Kitchener Source: Desjardins R'eak to Jam.'23 Page 275 of 601 U1nit Size Brawn ': of all h renes in Kitchener have Page 276 of 601 O U�nit Type ■ • IMI Ione thea half of tchener's units are singles ,, M�id�d�le" building types com:pr,ise 18%. typologies of all units in Kitchener. Apartment Source: 2021 Census .w- 98-10- , • Olf •1 Aousehold Distribution A, 59% of Kitchener h�ou�seh�old�s are made up of 1 62% of our, housing u�nits are 3 or, more be1ww i ff*T&a r— — — — —-► I More I Bedrooms I Than PeoplIe WO W) ITT We 0111 2021 Census Tabe 98i-10-0240-01 Page 278 of • 1 Core H�ousiing, Need Core Housing Need represents people wh�ose current housing fails to meet their i Over, 36.,000people i ption. That's and 4% of owners. r i fo more i r o alread�y live in Kitchener., and is separate from consids Y olds with a core housing need�. 2021 Census Tabe 98i-10 46-01 Page 279 • 1 Staff Report l IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: April 24, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 x.7070 PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 x.7987 WARD INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: March 27, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-151 SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA22/001/K/KA Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/001/K/KA King -Charles Properties (Kitchener) Limited 1001 King Street East RECOMMENDATION: That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA22/001/K/KA for King Charles Properties (Kitchener) Limited requesting a land use designation change from `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1' to `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 10' 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 -2023-151 as Appendix `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/001/K/KA for King Charles Properties (Kitchener) Limited be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1', attached to Report DSD -2023-151 as Appendix `B'; and further That COUNCIL adopt the Urban Design Brief for 1001 King Street East attached to Report DSD -2023-151 as Appendix `C'. 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 subject lands located 1001 King Street East. It is planning staff's recommendation that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be approved, and the Urban Design Brief be adopted. The proposed Amendments support the creation of a high intensity mixed use development in a Major Transit Station Area. Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice and neighbourhood meeting invite postcard to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site, and publishing notice in the Record; o installation of large billboard notice signs on the property; o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 280 of 601 o Neighbourhood Meeting held on March 23, 2022; C postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject site, and those who responded to the preliminary circulation; o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on March 31, 2023. This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the lands addressed as 1001 King Street East is proposing to change the Official Plan (1994) land use designation from 'Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1' to 'Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 10' in the King Street East Secondary Plan, and to change the zoning from High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Use and Special Regulation Provisions in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' in Zoning By- law 85-1 with Special Regulation Provisions 544R and 788R and Holding Provision 100H to allow for an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR), further regulate parking, permit reduced setbacks to the street, allow for dwelling units and commercial uses to both be located on the ground floor, and to apply a Holding Provision to require remediation of site contamination and an updated noise study. Staff recommend that the applications be approved. BACKGROUND: King Charles Properties (Kitchener) Limited has made applications to the City of Kitchener for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment proposing to amend the land use designation and zoning of the lands at 1001 King Street East to permit the lands to be developed with a 30 -storey mixed use residential building with a proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.1. The lands are currently 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) with Special Regulation Provision 544R and 401 U' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The existing zoning permissions permit: • a range of uses including multiple dwellings, commercial and institutional uses, • a maximum building Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 4.0, • buildings with no maximum building height, subject only to the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) maximum requirement, • an on-site parking rate of 1 parking space for each dwelling unit over 51 square metres of floor area, • Special regulation 544R which allows for an increase Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to 5.0 for a mixed-use development with a food store and permits a building setback of 1.5 metres to King Street East and Charles Street East. • Special use 401 U which restricts sensitive uses until a Record of Site Condition is completed. Site Context The proposed development includes lands on King Street East and Charles Street East which have been consolidated and are now addressed as 1001 King Street East and are located mid -block between Borden Avenue and Ottawa Street South. The subject lands have a lot area of 0.65 hectares. The subject lands currently contain a car parts supplier store (formerly Onward Manufacturing), a repair shop, an a -waste collection facility, 2 single detached dwellings and 1 duplex dwelling. The applicant has advised that the dwellings are currently subject to short-term and interim leases with tenants. The surrounding neighbourhood consists of a variety of uses including commercial, industrial, office, singles detached dwellings and small multiples. High-rise residential uses have also been recently approved in proximity to the subject lands at 20 Ottawa Street North and 926 King Street East. The subject lands are located within 150 metres of the Borden ION station, which is located on Charles Street East near the intersection with Borden Avenue South. Existing bus routes operate along King Page 281 of 601 Street East, Ottawa Street, Charles Street including an Npress Route, and the subject lands are in close proximity to the downtown cycling grid and Iron Horse Trail. Figure 1 — 1001 King Street East REPORT: The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with a mixed-use residential building consisting of a 30 -storey tower (Building A) and an 11 -storey building (Building B) and a 4 -storey podium with a shared roof -top amenity area and structured parking facility. The development is proposed to have an FSR of 8.1 (based on the pre -road -widening lot area). The mixed use building proposes a total of 464 residential units with approximately 450 square metres of commercial/retail space at grade fronting King Street East and 7 two-storey live -work units fronting Charles Street East. A parking rate of 0.64 parking spaces per dwelling unit is proposed. Parking is primarily located within a parking garage with one storey of underground parking and four storeys of above -grade parking within the podium. Building step -backs are provided at the 4t' floor and the 11th floor. Outdoor amenity space is proposed on the 4th level of the podium that connects the 30 storey tower with the 11 storey building. Page 282 of 601 p µ re" -SUBJECT AREA ^^ww Y frv" DELIFX"'7_B_ �.4���4t, Figure 1 — 1001 King Street East REPORT: The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with a mixed-use residential building consisting of a 30 -storey tower (Building A) and an 11 -storey building (Building B) and a 4 -storey podium with a shared roof -top amenity area and structured parking facility. The development is proposed to have an FSR of 8.1 (based on the pre -road -widening lot area). The mixed use building proposes a total of 464 residential units with approximately 450 square metres of commercial/retail space at grade fronting King Street East and 7 two-storey live -work units fronting Charles Street East. A parking rate of 0.64 parking spaces per dwelling unit is proposed. Parking is primarily located within a parking garage with one storey of underground parking and four storeys of above -grade parking within the podium. Building step -backs are provided at the 4t' floor and the 11th floor. Outdoor amenity space is proposed on the 4th level of the podium that connects the 30 storey tower with the 11 storey building. Page 282 of 601 WAR[ESMUH Figure 2 — Conceptual Site Plan Figure 3 — Conceptual Massing Model (King Street East elevation) Page 283 of 601 The initial Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications proposed a 30 -storey single tower, mixed-use development, with an FSR of 8.27 and a parking rate of 0.54 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Through the review process, the applicant has worked with staff to refine the building so that it better achieves Urban Design policies and the Tall Building Guidelines. The updated building and site design (as shown in Figures 2 & 3) proposes an `L' shaped building having a 30 - storey tower oriented to Charles Street East and a 11 storey building oriented to King Street East, all sitting upon a 4 -storey podium. The parking structure is wrapped with commercial and residential units along the King Street East frontages, and live -work units are proposed at grade along the Charles Street East frontage. Planning staff is supportive of the revised building design, in accordance with the comments and discussion in the following sections of this report and recommend that the proposed site-specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments be approved and the Urban Design Brief be adopted. Table 1 below highlights the development concept statistics. Table 1. Proposed Development Concept Statistics To facilitate the redevelopment of 1001 King Street East with the proposed development concept, an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment are required. The lands are currently designated `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1' in the City of Kitchener King Street East Secondary Plan and is zoned `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' with `Special Regulation Provision 544R' and `Special Regulation Provision 401 U' applying to two smaller former lots. The owner is proposing to change the land use designation to `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy 10' in the King Street East Secondary Plan and the zoning of the entire parcel to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provisions 544R, 788R and Holding Provision 100H' in Zoning By-law 85-1, to allow for a FSR of 8.1; reduce the required parking; reduce setbacks to the street; require secure and weather protected bicycle parking; allow live -work units on the ground floor; and prohibit geothermal energy systems. 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 Region is in receipt of a Record of Site Condition and a noise study is completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Page 284 of 601 Development Concept Number of Units 464 dwelling units Commercial Space 450 square metres Parking Spaces 300 parking spaces (approx.) Building Height 30 storeys Podium Height 4 storeys Class A (indoor secured) Bicycle Parkin Minimum of 0.5 spaces per unit Class B (outdoor visitor) Bicycle Parking Minimum of 6 Electric Vehicle Ready Parking Stalls Minimum of 20% Floor Space Ratio 8.1 Unit Types 1 -bedroom units (130) — 28% 1 -bedroom + den units (202) — 43.5% 2 -bedroom units (115) — 25% 3 -bedroom units (10) — 2% Live -work units (7) — 1.5% To facilitate the redevelopment of 1001 King Street East with the proposed development concept, an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment are required. The lands are currently designated `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1' in the City of Kitchener King Street East Secondary Plan and is zoned `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3)' with `Special Regulation Provision 544R' and `Special Regulation Provision 401 U' applying to two smaller former lots. The owner is proposing to change the land use designation to `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy 10' in the King Street East Secondary Plan and the zoning of the entire parcel to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provisions 544R, 788R and Holding Provision 100H' in Zoning By-law 85-1, to allow for a FSR of 8.1; reduce the required parking; reduce setbacks to the street; require secure and weather protected bicycle parking; allow live -work units on the ground floor; and prohibit geothermal energy systems. 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 Region is in receipt of a Record of Site Condition and a noise study is completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Page 284 of 601 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, a) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; b) The minimization of waste; c) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; d) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; e) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; f) The appropriate location of growth and development; g) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; h) 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; j) 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 and light rail and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands will be remediated through the development process and noise mitigation will be implemented. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed mixed-use development represents an attainable form of market-based housing. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a mixed-use 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. Page 285 of 601 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. Policy 2.2.4 requires that planning be prioritized for Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA) on priority transit corridors, including zoning in a manner that implements the policies of the Growth Plan. MTSAs on priority transit corridors will be planned for a minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail transit or bus rapid transit. The Region of Waterloo's ION is a form of light rail transit, and the ION stations are MTSAs that are required to achieve the minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built-up area and the Borden Station MTSA. The proposed development provides residential intensification and will help the City achieve density targets of the MTSA. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan. Page 286 of 601 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 subject lands are within the MTSA boundary that was approved in Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 6) in August 2022. The minimum density target for an MTSA is 160 people and jobs per hectare (ppj's/ha). Planning staff completed an evaluation of the existing density for each MTSA for the 2021 Growth Monitoring Report based on 2019 statistics. The Borden Station MTSA consists of an area of about 54 hectares and had an overall density of 44 residents and jobs per hectare in 2019. The subject proposal having 464 units and about 450 m2 of commercial floor space represents about 864 residents and jobs. Therefore, this development will contribute about 16 people and jobs per hectare to the Borden Station MTSA. The Region of Waterloo have requested a holding provision be added to the site-specific zoning. 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 of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses. The policies of Special Policy Area 1 were deleted through OPA 111. Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within a Major Transit Station Area. The planned function of the MTSAs is to provide densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit -oriented. Policies also require that development applications in Major Transit Station Areas give consideration to the Transit -Oriented Development policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the Official Plan. Generally, the Transit -Oriented Development policies support a compact urban form that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience. These policies also support developments which foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Page 287 of 601 development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby rapid transit. The building and development will contribute to a high quality public realm. Through the Site Plan Approval process, the applicant will be required to make parkland dedication. The applicant is proposing to dedicate lands for an urban green at the southeast corner of Bordon Ave and King Street East (967- 977 King Street East). In addition, private amenity space will be provided on site for future residents. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment will support a development that not only complies with the City's policies for a Major Transit Station Area but also contributes to the vision for a complete and healthy city. Growing Together The Growing Together project is the continuation of the City's ongoing planning review process that began with PARTS and advanced through the Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) project, while also responding to new direction from the province, implementing the updated Regional Official Plan, and addressing new and emerging city priorities. PARTS Rockway Plan The subject lands are located within the PARTS Rockway Plan which is a guiding document for land uses within and around rapid transit station stops. The PARTS Rockway Plan made recommendations for amendments to the Secondary Plans within MTSAs, which have not yet been implemented. Some of the primary recommendations are to encourage the development of underutilized sites with higher density live -work environments and to increase housing supply with multi -unit residential while protecting existing stable neighbourhoods. The proposed development provides for a higher density housing options and the proposed amendment is in keeping with the PARTS Rockway vision for development within and around the ION stops. Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) The subject lands are within the King East Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) area. The proposed zoning and policies for this site contemplated most intensive mixed use zoning permissions. 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 number of rental apartment units available in the city. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types including one, two and three bedroom units, and live -work units, which will 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 time of Site Plan Application. Page 288 of 601 Health and Safety Policies: Official Plan policies seek to minimize and mitigate land use conflicts between sensitive land uses and sources of noise and vibration, and potential contamination. The Region of Waterloo has identified that the lands are located in proximity to noise sources (roads), potential stationary noise sources, and have been identified as having environmental threats (contamination) on and adjacent to the subject lands. Official Plan policies permit the use of holding provisions where it is desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions. The Region has requested that a Holding Provision be applied to the lands through the site-specific zoning to require filing of a Record of Site Condition and completion of a noise and vibration study prior to residential uses being permitted. Parkland Acquisition: Official Plan policies support the dedication of parkland in accordance with the Parks Strategic Plan. The subject area has been identified as being underserved by parks. The applicant is proposing to dedicate lands at the southeast corner of King Street East and Borden Street to the City of Kitchener as an Urban Green through the future Site Plan process. Parks staff is supportive of this proposal and will continue to pursue park land dedication through the subsequent Site Plan process. KING 1 HET LA$ r . m..... . Figure 4 — Proposed Urban Green Urban Design The City's urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the Official Plan. 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. To address these policies, an Urban Design Brief was submitted and has been reviewed by City staff. The Urban Design Brief outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed zoning by-law regulations and the future Site Plan review process. The Urban Design Brief is attached as Appendix `C' and staff recommend that it be adopted by Council to guide the Site Plan Application Approval Process. Page 289 of 601 Streetscape: The building has been designed to address and create a positive and active streetscape along both the King Street East and Charles Street East frontages. The King Street East frontage is activated by at -grade commercial units, the primary entrance to the residential lobby, and an enhanced landscaped area commemorating the Onward Manufacturing Plant. Seven two-storey live -work units are proposed along the Charles Street East frontage activating the street, together with a secondary residential lobby entrance. Principal entrances and lobbies are located at grade with direct access to public sidewalks. The proposed tower includes a 4 storey -podium base, and the upper storey of the base fronting King Street East is wrapped with dwelling units which will further enhance the character of the street. Safety: As part of the site plan approval process, staff will ensure Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site meets the Ontario Building Code and the City's Emergency Services Policy. Universal Design: The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code. Skyline: The proposed buildings will provide a new feature on the City's skyline. The proposed building will create visual interest from several different vantage points. Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale: The scale of the proposed building and resulting FSR is higher than those presently built in the MTSA, however staff is of the opinion that it is compatible with the existing and planned built form of the MTSA and the surrounding neighbourhood. Nearby developments approved at 20 Ottawa St North and at 1251 King Street East (at Sheldon Ave) are of a comparable height and scale. The proposed mixed use building has been designed in a contemporary style and includes a well defined 4 -storey podium and an `L' shaped tower with 11 and 30 storey sections which help to break up the massing. The mass of the 30 -storey tower has been oriented towards Charles Street East, where it interfaces with existing industrial uses south of Charles Street East, and the 4 and 11 storey components of the building are oriented to King Street East, which is the primary pedestrian focus. The proposed building and at grade uses contribute to the streetscape and provides for a transition to the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the north. The proposed built form includes above grade structured parking internal to the building. Due to a high water table, only one level of below -grade parking is feasible (and for the same reason, why geothermal is proposed to be prohibited). As such, 4 levels of above -grade parking internal to the building are proposed. The parking structure is proposed to be wrapped with commercial and residential units along King Street East, and live -work units along Charles Street East. The above - grade parking within the building is screened from view along the ground floor, thereby maintaining a pedestrian focussed and activated streetscape. Staff note that the building floor area occupied by the above grade parking structure, contributes to the total FSR, however the massing of this portion of the building is well screened, and structured parking is strongly preferred to surface parking. City policies support the construction of structured parking in order to maximize intensification opportunities and minimize surface parking. 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; Page 290 of 601 • 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. Urban Design 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 aligns with acceptable onsite and offsite separations and overlook which provides opportunities for future development of tall buildings on neighbouring lands. Shadow Impact Study: The owner has completed a Shadow Impact Study which is attached as part of the Urban Design Brief in Appendix 'C'. 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. The placement of the tower avoids most shadow impacts on the residentially zoned lands north of King Street East during daytime hours in the spring, summer and autumn. 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. Wind control features will be required through the site plan application. Cultural Heritage Policies of the Official Plan seek to conserve cultural heritage resources. The property municipally addressed as 1027 King Street East (and located within the subject lands) is listed as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The property is also located within the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood- a significant cultural heritage landscape as per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) which was prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd and approved by Council in 2015. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared and contemplates the demolition of the existing listed structure. The HIA found that only the Art Deco Tower in the middle of the building possessed cultural heritage value, with the adjacent buildings having lost its cultural heritage integrity due to many alterations and a fire that damaged the existing structure. However, the report found that preserving the tower without the two other structures would not be possible as it is structurally reliant on the adjacent buildings. Other alternatives, such as retaining only the Art -Deco Tower were explored but were ultimately not recommended. The listed property also had historical and contextual value, specifically with regards to its the views from Onward Avenue. The findings and recommendations of the HIA were presented and discussed at the January 4, 2022, meeting of Heritage Kitchener. Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that the recommended mitigation measures including documentation and commemoration are appropriate for the conservation of the cultural heritage value of the existing resource. As outlined in the Urban Design Brief and HIA, the commemoration will be completed at the Site Plan Application stage and will include: • Installing the `Eureka' signage - inspired from the 'Eureka' tiles found inside the existing building - in front of the proposed development; Page 291 of 601 • a large "Memorial Wall" at the terminating view from Onward Ave, where the existing building currently is located, and at the entrance of the podium which details the history of the site and its evolution over time to commemorate and preserve the existing terminating views, and • re -use of salvaged elements of the Art Deco Tower (including original Eureka tiles, window and door elements, and existing metal columns). 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 within 150 metres of the Borden ION station stop, and several bus routes including an iXpress bus route. The building has good access to cycling networks, including existing on and off-street cycling facilities and is located in proximity to the downtown cycling grid. Secure, weather protected bicycle parking, and short-term visitor bicycle parking will be required as part of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment. The proposed development applications would permit compact mixed-use development that supports walkability within a pedestrian -friendly environment, and that allows walking to be safe, comfortable, barrier -free and a convenient form of urban travel. Pedestrian lobbies are provided to both King Street East and Charles Street East, and commercial and live -work units will also connect directly with the public sidewalks. Recessed weather protected pedestrian entrances are proposed which will enhance the comfort of pedestrian entering/exiting the building, and those passing by along the public street. 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 and a parking reduction is proposed. Policy objectives of the Official Plan seek to ensure adequate parking, while also reducing demand by supporting public transit and active transportation, especially in intensification areas. Further discussion with respect to the proposed parking reduction is provided in the Zoning By-law discussion below. A Transportation Impact Study was completed in support of the application and has been reviewed and accepted by City and Regional transportation staff. The TIS find that no off-site improvements are required for the proposed development (such as turning lanes or changes to intersections). Staff is satisfied that the proposed development and parking rates comply with the Transportation Policies of the Official Plan. Proposed Official Plan Amendment: The applicant is proposing to add Special Policy Area 10 to the King Street East Secondary Plan to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.1 whereas the current Official Plan policies allow for a maximum FSR of 4.0. The proposed site-specific increase to the Floor Space Ratio will permit the proposed development concept. 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. 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 uses. The MU -3 zone currently allows for a maximum 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. Page 292 of 601 The applicant has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law 85-1 to change the zoning of Area 1 from `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 544R' to `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 544R, Special Regulation Provision 788R and Holding Provision 100H' and Area 2 from `High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Use Provision 401 U and Special Regulation Provision 544R' to 'High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 544R, Special Regulation Provision 788R and Holding Provision 100H'. The proposed Special Regulation Provision is to permit an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR), permit reduced setbacks, reduce the required parking rate, permit live -work units on the ground floor, and to prohibit geothermal energy systems. 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. Staff offer the following comments with respect to the proposed Special Regulation Provision 788R: a) That the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) shall be 8.1. 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. As discussed in the context of the proposed Official Plan Amendment in the preceding section, staff is of the opinion that the proposed development concept including 464 dwelling units in 30 storey and 11 storey towers with a 4 storey podium, which includes active uses at grade, structured parking and dwelling units fronting the primary pedestrian street, represents an appropriate development in a MTSA and in close proximity to an ION station. The building has an acceptable degree of compliance with the Tall Building Guidelines and does not compromise the development potential of neighbouring or nearby lands. The building has been oriented to minimize impacts to established low-rise residential lands north of King Street East and east of Ottawa Street South. Staff is of the opinion that a FSR of 8.1 is appropriate for this site. b) The minimum yard abutting Charles Street East shall be 1.2 metres for the ground floor and 0.0 metres for storeys above the ground floor and the minimum yard abutting King Street East shall be 1.2 metres for portions of the building containing commercial, residential and amenity uses and 5.0 metres for portions of the building containing mechanical and/or parking structure. The applicant is proposing to reduce the yards abutting the street to accommodate for the proposed built form. Staff note that a road widening of about 3.0 m is required along the Charles Street East frontage and 4.0 metres is required along the King Street East frontage. The purpose of these widenings is to provide additional right-of-way width for future street improvements. Staff anticipate that in both cases such improvements would not necessarily include expansion for vehicles but would likely include improved pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Further, the proposed setback aligns with or exceeds the minimum setback required by Enova for the existing hydro poles (these can exceed, and also supersede, zoning setback regulations). The proposed building setback would be from the future lot line and regulations clarify that they are to be measured from the post -road - widening property line. Staff is of the opinion that permitting a 1.2 metre setback to the ground floor uses along Charles Street East provides an appropriate distance between the building and future property line to incorporate on-site hard and soft landscaping, and the proposed 0.0 metre setback for upper storeys allows the building to project on upper storeys of the podium to provide for a weather protected entrance to the residential lobby and live -work units. The proposed 1.2 metre setback along King Street East applies to all levels and accommodates for the minimum setback to the hydro lines, while also allowing some space for hard and soft landscaping. The building is proposed to have variation in the fagade setbacks allowing for commercial units to be close to the Page 293 of 601 street, and the residential lobby to be somewhat recessed with a weather protected overhang. The zoning will also require that sections of the building not incorporating active uses be setback for 5.0 to accommodate for enhanced landscaped area and commemoration features. c) That parking be provided at a rate of 0.54 parking spaces per dwelling unit and that 0.1 parking spaces per dwelling unit be reserved for visitor parking and non-residential uses. Bicycle and electric vehicle parking are to be provided in accordance with Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of this regulation is to provide for a parking rate which is appropriate for the development. A Transportation Impact Study and Parking Justification Study were submitted in support of the applications. Transportation staff have reviewed the study and are supportive of the proposed parking rate of 0.54 parking spaces per dwelling unit subject to Transportation Demand Management techniques including provision of secure and weather protected bike parking, unbundled parking, provision of TDM educational materials, subsidized transit passes and provision of a car share parking space. The subject lands have excellent access to public transit including Ion, iXpress and local bus routes, and pedestrian/cycling networks. Staff recommend an additional 0.1 parking spaces per dwelling unit be reserved for shared use between residential visitors and commercial units. The proposed visitor parking rate of 0.1 parking spaces per dwelling unit is consistent with the visitor rate for multiple dwellings in a mixed use zone in Zoning By-law 2019-051. While in many cases it may be appropriate to reduce visitor parking rates, in this instance there is no on -street parking on many adjacent streets including on Ottawa Street, King Street East, Charles Street East, and Borden Avenue South, and unlike in the downtown, there are currently no public off-site parking lots or garages in close proximity. Staff also heard concerns from residents about impacts to the availability of on -street parking on local roads such as Onward Avenue and Crescent Street. While short-term on -street parking will continue to be available to the general public, due to the limited availability, it is appropriate provide for visitor parking on-site. Staff is of the opinion that while a landlord may be able to manage parking generated by tenants through lease agreements and TDM measures, it is more difficult to manage that of visitors. Staff is satisfied that based on the location of the site, and proposed TDM measures that a parking ratio of 0.64 (0.54 resident parking spaces per dwelling unit and 0.1 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit) is appropriate. d) Live -work units shall be permitted to be located on the ground floor fronting Charles Street East. The purpose of this regulation is to allow for live -work units to be located on the ground floor along the Charles Street East frontage. The current zoning of the property does not allow for dwelling units to be located on the ground floor unless the development is entirely residential. Live -work units are a hybrid living/working space, the regulation clarifies this use is permitted on the ground floor along Charles Street East. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed live -work units will provide an appropriate active use along the Charles Street East frontage. d) Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited. The Region of Waterloo has indicated Geothermal Energy Systems need to be prohibited to mitigate the risks associated with groundwater contamination. Removal of Special Use Provision 401 U Special Use Provision 401U is proposed to be removed. This regulation currently only applies to former lots which contained residential uses and restricts new sensitive uses until a Record of Site Condition has been completed and the Region has received a Ministry Acknowledgment Letter. Holding Provision 100H takes the place of the Special Use Provision and applies to the entirety of the subject lands. Page 294 of 601 Holding Provision 100H Official Plan policies require that holding provisions will be applied in those situations where it is necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment have not yet been fully resolved. 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. Planning staff is recommending that a Holding Provision, in accordance with Regional comments and requirements, be applied to the zoning of the subject lands. The proposed Holding Provision will restrict residential uses until: • a Record of Site Condition has been completed; and • a detailed transportation (road), vibration and stationary noise study has been completed and mitigation measures have been implemented. Proposed Zoning BV -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 Provisions 544R, 788R and Holding Provision 100H 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 "B". Department and Agency Comments: Circulation of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment was undertaken in January 2022 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 "E" of this report. The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by: MHBC Planning, November 2021 (updated November 2022 and February 2023) • Urban Design Brief & Shadow Study Prepared by: MHBC Planning, November 2021 (updated November 2022 and March 2023) • Conceptual Site Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans Prepared by: Neo Architecture Inc., March 2021 (updated November 2022 and February 2023) • Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Report Prepared By: MHBC Planning, November 2021 (updated November 2022) • Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study and Site Circulation Review Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions, November 2021 (Addendum Letter dated February 2023) • Pedestrian Level Wind — Preliminary Impact Assessment Page 295 of 601 Prepared by: Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, June 2021 (updated November 2022) • Site Servicing Feasibility Study Prepared by: SBM, August 2021 (updated December 2022 and revised February 2023) • Provisional Risk Management Plan, Section 58(6) Notice & Section 59(2) Notice Prepared by: Region of Waterloo, November 2021 • Topographical Survey Prepared by: ACI Survey Consultants, October 2019 • Sustainability Statement Prepared by: MHBC Planning, November 2021 • Tree Management Plan Prepared By: Dan Weagant, August 2021 • Noise Feasibility Study Prepared by: HGC Engineering, October 2021 Community Input & Staff Responses in MM FAA I VA M i 344 addresses (occupants and property owners) were circulated and notified a �NNNN�1�i�� Approximately 13 people/households/businesses provided comment ei, A City -led Neighbourhood Meeting was held on March 23, 2022, and 12V different users logged on Several responses received indicated a general level of support for the proposed development and an overall increase in densities near transit stations, however identified concerns with certain aspects of the proposal. One respondent is supportive of the proposal and shared family history associated with the lands. An overview of the identified concerns and staff responses are found below. What We Heard Staff Comment Concerns with increase to traffic A Traffic Impact Study was submitted and reviewed by Regional and City Transportation staff. The TIS did not identify any major traffic concerns or need for road improvements as a result of the proposed development. Page 296 of 601 Page 297 of 601 The applicant is proposing a full moves access to the parking garage to King Street East, and a right -in, right - out service only access to Charles Street East. The study finds that the driveways will operate at an acceptable level of service, and that turning lanes are not warranted. Concerns with reductions to parking As discussed in the context of the proposed zoning rates and impacts to on -street regulations, staff are recommending an overall parking parking availability rate of 0.64 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Staff is supportive of the recommended parking rate of 0.54 parking spaces per residential unit for residents given the proximity to the ION station, and other public transit options and the transportation demand management measures proposed. Staff recommends that an additional 0.1 parking spaces per dwelling unit be reserved for visitors and commercial units. This is consistent with the visitor parking rate required by new Zoning By-law 2019- 051 for residential units in mixed use zones. Residents expressed concerns with spillover parking onto surrounding neighbourhood streets. On -street parking on local roads is available equally to the general public, however, is limited to a maximum length of 3 hours. Staff recognize the limited availability of on -street parking in proximity to the subject lands and is of the opinion that that the proposed parking resident and visitor parking rates will result in a development where parking can be accommodated on-site. Concerns with compatibility of high- A number of residents expressed concerns regarding the rise development with nearby low- compatibility of the proposed high-rise development with rise residential uses and shadow nearby low-rise residential uses. The subject lands are impacts. located on a Regional Road and a City Arterial road in close proximity to the Borden Ion station. High-rise development is appropriate in this location. Through the application review process, staff have worked with the applicant to reorient the massing of the 30 -storey tower on the site so that it is located away from King Street East. This has helped to reduce shadow impacts on the residential lands north of King Street East. The 4 -storey podium and 11 -storey building are oriented towards King Street East, which provides for a transition in heights and orients the active uses to King Street East which is the primary pedestrian frontage. Questions about compliance with Urban Design staff has confirmed that the proposed Tall Building Guidelines towers are generally consistent with and meet the overall intent of the City's Design for Tall Building Guidelines. More specifically, the proposed development aligns with an acceptable on-site and off-site separations and overlook which provides opportunities for future development of tall buildings on neighbouring lands. Page 297 of 601 Provision of park and amenity spaces The development will include appropriate on-site amenity spaces for future residents which will be further detailed and designed, in accordance with Urban Design Guidelines through the Site Plan process. The applicant is proposing to dedicate park lands at the south-east corner of Borden Avenue and King Street East for an Urban Green. These lands will be conveyed through the Site Plan Approval process. Concerns with the public Through the application review process, the developer (pedestrian) interface of the building has worked with staff to refine the building design and (streetscape, pedestrian realm, and massing. Active uses including commercial units, and a terminating views) residential lobby have been located along King Street East and live -work units and a residential lobby to Charles Street East. A larger landscaped area including commemoration features will be include on King Street East and form the terminating view from Onward Avenue. These measures are articulated in the Urban Design Brief and will be implemented and further refined through the Site Plan process. Concerns about lack of affordable Through the review process the applicant has improved housing and range of dwelling units the range of dwelling unit types to include one bedroom, one bedroom plus den, two bedroom and three bedroom rental dwelling units, as well as live -work units. While not deeply affordable, the applicant has indicated that the building will provide market-based, attainable housing. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 1001 King Street East to be developed with a 30 -storey mixed use development. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. It is recommended that the applications be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The recommendations 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 signs were posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in January of 2022. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the Neighbourhood Meeting and 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 Page 298 of 601 Meetings. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on March 31 , 2023 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix D). 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 in January 2022. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 13 members of the public, which were summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Region of Waterloo Official Plan • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 1994 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 REVIEWED BY: Tina Malone -Wright— Interim Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services APPENDICES: Appendix A — Proposed Official Plan Amendment Appendix B — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Appendix C — Urban Design Brief Appendix D — Newspaper Notice Appendix E — Department and Agency Comments Appendix F — Public Comments Page 299 of 601 AMENDMENT NO. XXX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 1001 King Street East Page 300 of 601 AMENDMENT NO. XXX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 1001 King Street East irvnFx 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 (April 24, 2023) APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee (April 24, 2023) APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council (May 8, 2023) Page 301 of 601 AMENDMENT NO. ### TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. ### 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 1001 King Street East from `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1' to `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 10' • Adding Policy 13.2.3.10 to Section 13.2.3 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 8.1. SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT 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, a) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; b) The minimization of waste; c) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; d) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; e) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; f) The appropriate location of growth and development; g) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; h) 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; j) 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 Page 302 of 601 patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus and light rail and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands will be remediated through the development process and noise mitigation will be implemented. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed mixed-use development represents an attainable form of market-based housing. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a mixed-use 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. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and 4 Page 303 of 601 g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. Policy 2.2.4 requires that planning be prioritized for Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA) on priority transit corridors, including zoning in a manner that implements the policies of the Growth Plan. MTSAs on priority transit corridors will be planned for a minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail transit or bus rapid transit. The Region of Waterloo's ION is a form of light rail transit, and the ION stations are MTSAs that are required to achieve the minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built-up area and the Borden Station MTSA. The proposed development provides residential intensification and will help the City achieve density targets of the MTSA. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. 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 subject lands are within the MTSA boundary that was approved in Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 6) in August 2022. The minimum density target for an MTSA is 160 people and jobs per hectare (ppj's/ha). Planning staff completed an evaluation of the existing density for each MTSA for the 2021 Growth Monitoring Report based on 2019 statistics. The Borden Station MTSA consists of an area of about 54 hectares and had an overall density of 44 residents and jobs per hectare in 2019. The subject proposal having 464 units and about 450 m2 of commercial floor space represents about 864 residents and jobs. Therefore, this development will contribute about 16 people and jobs per hectare to the Borden Station MTSA. The Region of Waterloo have requested a holding provision be added to the site-specific zoning. 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 Page 304 of 601 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. Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within a Major Transit Station Area. The planned function of the MTSAs is to provide densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit - oriented. Policies also require that development applications in Major Transit Station Areas give consideration to the Transit -Oriented Development policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the Official Plan. Generally, the Transit -Oriented Development policies support a compact urban form that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience. These policies also support developments which foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby rapid transit. The building and development will contribute to a high quality public realm. Through the Site Plan Approval process, the applicant will be required to make parkland dedication. The applicant is proposing to dedicate lands for an urban green at the southeast corner of Bordon Ave and King Street East (967-977 King Street East). In addition, private amenity space will be provided on site for future residents. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment will support a development that not only complies with the City's policies for a Major Transit Station Area but also contributes to the vision for a complete and healthy city. Growing Together The Growing Together project is the continuation of the City's ongoing planning review process that began with PARTS and advanced through the Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) project, while also responding to new direction from the province, implementing the updated Regional Official Plan, and addressing new and emerging city priorities. PARTS Rockway Plan The subject lands are located within the PARTS Rockway Plan which is a guiding document for land uses within and around rapid transit station stops. The PARTS Rockway Plan made recommendations for amendments to the Secondary Plans within MTSAs, which have not yet been implemented. Some of the primary recommendations are to encourage the development of underutilized sites with higher density live -work environments and to increase housing supply with multi -unit residential while protecting existing stable neighbourhoods. The proposed development provides for a higher density housing options and the proposed amendment is in keeping with the PARTS Rockway vision for development within and around the ION stops. Page 305 of 601 Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) The subject lands are within the King East Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) area. The proposed zoning and policies for this site contemplated most intensive mixed use zoning permissions. 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 number of rental apartment units available in the city. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types including one, two and three bedroom units, and live -work units, which will 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 time of Site Plan Application. Health and Safety Policies: Official Plan policies seek to minimize and mitigate land use conflicts between sensitive land uses and sources of noise and vibration, and potential contamination. The Region of Waterloo has identified that the lands are located in proximity to noise sources (roads), potential stationary noise sources, and have been identified as having environmental threats (contamination) on and adjacent to the subject lands. Official Plan policies permit the use of holding provisions where it is desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions. The Region has requested that a Holding Provision be applied to the lands through the site-specific zoning to require filing of a Record of Site Condition and completion of a noise and vibration study prior to residential uses being permitted. Parkland Acquisition: Official Plan policies support the dedication of parkland in accordance with the Parks Strategic Plan. The subject area has been identified as being underserved by parks. The applicant is proposing to dedicate lands at the southeast corner of King Street East and Borden Street to the City of Kitchener as an Urban Green through the future Site Plan process. Parks staff is supportive of this proposal and will continue to pursue park land dedication through the subsequent Site Plan process. Page 306 of 601 Urban Design The City's urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the Official Plan. 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. To address these policies, an Urban Design Brief was submitted and has been reviewed by City staff. The Urban Design Brief outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed zoning by-law regulations and the future Site Plan review process. The Urban Design Brief is attached as Appendix `C' and staff recommend that it be adopted by Council to guide the Site Plan Application Approval Process. Streetscape: The building has been designed to address and create a positive and active streetscape along both the King Street East and Charles Street East frontages. The King Street East frontage is activated by at -grade commercial units, the primary entrance to the residential lobby, and an enhanced landscaped area commemorating the Onward Manufacturing Plant. Seven two-storey live -work units are proposed along the Charles Street East frontage activating the street, together with a secondary residential lobby entrance. Principal entrances and lobbies are located at grade with direct access to public sidewalks. The proposed tower includes a 4 storey -podium base, and the upper storey of the base fronting King Street East is wrapped with dwelling units which will further enhance the character of the street. Safety: As part of the site plan approval process, staff will ensure Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site meets the Ontario Building Code and the City's Emergency Services Policy. Universal Design: The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code. Skyline: The proposed buildings will provide a new feature on the City's skyline. The proposed building will create visual interest from several different vantage points. Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale: The scale of the proposed building and resulting FSR is higher than those presently built in the MTSA, however staff is of the opinion that it is compatible with the existing and planned built form of the MTSA and the surrounding neighbourhood. Nearby developments approved at 20 Ottawa St North and at 1251 King Street East (at Sheldon Ave) are of a comparable height and scale. The proposed mixed use building has been designed in a contemporary style and includes a well defined 4 -storey podium and an 'L' shared tower with 11 and 30 storey sections which help to break up the massing. The mass of the 30 -storey tower has been oriented towards Charles Street East, where it interfaces with existing industrial uses south of Charles Street East, and the 4 and 11 storey components of the building are oriented to King Street East, which is the primary pedestrian focus. The proposed building and at grade uses contribute to the streetscape and provides for a transition to the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the north. The proposed built form includes above grade structured parking internal to the building. Due to a high water table, only one level of below -grade parking is feasible (and for the same reason, why geothermal is proposed to be prohibited). As such, 4 levels of above -grade parking internal to the building are proposed. The parking structure is proposed to be wrapped with commercial Page 307 of 601 and residential units along King Street East, and live -work units along Charles Street East. The above -grade parking within the building is screened from view along the ground floor, thereby maintaining a pedestrian focussed and activated streetscape. Staff note that the building floor area occupied by the above grade parking structure, contributes to the total FSR, however the massing of this portion of the building is well screened, and structured parking is strongly preferred to surface parking. City policies support the construction of structured parking in order to maximize intensification opportunities and minimize surface parking. 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. Urban Design 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 aligns with acceptable onsite and offsite separations and overlook which provides opportunities for future development of tall buildings on neighbouring lands. Shadow Impact Study: The owner has completed a Shadow Impact Study which is attached as part of the Urban Design Brief in Appendix `C'. 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. The placement of the tower avoids most shadow impacts on the residentially zoned lands north of King Street East during daytime hours in the spring, summer and autumn. 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. Wind control features will be required through the site plan application. Cultural Heritage Policies of the Official Plan seek to conserve cultural heritage resources. The property municipally addressed as 1027 King Street East (and located within the subject lands) is listed as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The property is also located within the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood- a significant cultural heritage landscape as per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) which was prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd and approved by Council in 2015. Page 308 of 601 A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared and contemplates the demolition of the existing listed structure. The HIA found that only the Art Deco Tower in the middle of the building possessed cultural heritage value, with the adjacent buildings having lost its cultural heritage integrity due to many alterations and a fire that damaged the existing structure. However, the report found that preserving the tower without the two other structures would not be possible as it is structurally reliant on the adjacent buildings. Other alternatives, such as retaining only the Art - Deco Tower were explored but were ultimately not recommended. The listed property also had historical and contextual value, specifically with regards to its the views from Onward Avenue. The findings and recommendations of the HIA were presented and discussed at the January 4, 2022, meeting of Heritage Kitchener. Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that the recommended mitigation measures including documentation and commemoration are appropriate for the conservation of the cultural heritage value of the existing resource. As outlined in the Urban Design Brief and HIA, the commemoration will be completed at the Site Plan Application stage and will include: • Installing the `Eureka' signage - inspired from the 'Eureka' tiles found inside the existing building - in front of the proposed development; • a large "Memorial Wall" at the terminating view from Onward Ave, where the existing building currently is located, and at the entrance of the podium which details the history of the site and its evolution over time to commemorate and preserve the existing terminating views, and • re -use of salvaged elements of the Art Deco Tower (including original Eureka tiles, window and door elements, and existing metal columns). 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 within 150 metres of the Borden ION station stop, and several bus routes including an Xpress bus route. The building has good access to cycling networks, including existing on and off-street cycling facilities and is located in proximity to the downtown cycling grid. Secure, weather protected bicycle parking, and short-term visitor bicycle parking will be required as part of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment. The proposed development applications would permit compact mixed-use development that supports walkability within a pedestrian -friendly environment, and that allows walking to be safe, comfortable, barrier -free and a convenient form of urban travel. Pedestrian lobbies are provided to both King Street East and Charles Street East, and commercial and live -work units will also connect directly with the public sidewalks. Recessed weather protected pedestrian entrances are proposed which will enhance the comfort of pedestrian entering/exiting the building, and those passing by along the public street. 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 and a parking reduction is proposed. Policy objectives of the Official Plan seek to ensure adequate parking, while also reducing demand by supporting public transit and active transportation, especially in intensification areas. Further discussion with respect to the proposed parking reduction is provided in the Zoning By-law discussion below. A Transportation Impact Study was completed in support of the application and has been reviewed and accepted by City and Regional transportation staff. The TIS find that no off-site improvements are required for the proposed development (such as turning lanes or changes to 10 Page 309 of 601 intersections). Staff is satisfied that the proposed development and parking rates comply with the Transportation Policies of the Official Plan. Proposed Official Plan Amendment: The applicant is proposing to add Special Policy Area 10 to the King Street East Secondary Plan to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.1 whereas the current Official Plan policies allow for a maximum FSR of 4.0. The proposed site-specific increase to the Floor Space Ratio will permit the proposed development concept. 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. SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan (1994) is hereby amended as follows: a) Part 3, Section 13.2.3 Special Policies is amended by adding new Section 13.2.3.10 thereto as follows: 1110. Notwithstanding the Mixed Use Corridor land use designation and policies for lands addressed 1001 King Street East the maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio shall be 8.1. A Holding provision pursuant to Section 17.E.13 of the Official Plan will apply to residential uses, day care uses and other sensitive uses. The Holding provision will be lifted through a by-law amendment and will not be removed until such time as a Record of Site Condition has been completed and a Noise and Vibration Study has been approved by the Region and releases have been issued by the Region. b) Map 10 — King Street East Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use is amended by designating the lands, municipally addressed as 1001 King Street East, as `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 10' instead of `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 1', as shown on the attached Schedule W. 11 Page 310 of 601 APPENDIX 1: Notice of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (April 24, 2023) NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING 'for a development in your neighbourhood 1,001 King Street East Concept Drawing Have Your Voice Heard Date: Ap,rfl 2,4,2023 Location. Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 IKinig, Street West o—F,-tival Zom IMeeting ro view the staff report, agenda, meeting details„ start firne of this item or to appear as a delegation,vis& kitchener.ca/meetings leu learn snore about this project inClUding information on Your 0 appeal rights, visit WWW.kitchener.ca/ PlanningApplications 0 or contact: 0 C^ dr �Katie Andert, Senior Manner 519,741.2200X7987 katiie.andler[( ktchener.ca Fhe City of'Kitchener will consider applications to arnend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the property at 1001 King Street East to perimit a mixed-use development including; 4,64 residential units, 7 live work. units, 450 rn? of conirnerc4 space, and a parking rate of 0.64 parking spaces per dwelling unfit. "The development proposes anil' shaped buiUng with a, 30 -storey and a 111 -storey tower and a parking, structure with a floor Space patio (I°:'SR) of& 1. 12 Page 311 of 601 APPENDIX 2: Minutes of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (April 24, 2023) 13 Page 312 of 601 APPENDIX 3 - Minutes of the Meeting of City Council (May 8, 2023) 14 Page 313 of 601 Z Z a a IL a Qo U (cj 0 LL2w0 OOU wF- ww WLu Cl) Lu W O O H Z z 2 W Y 0a m F- O U W Z Q Q a Z ca N N N U O p LLo i Q) a) a o a o c� m oN Q o c Q L)cv -a N L N N L O L < 00 O ai -0m Q EX cmO — N EoO ai EU �0�O Q Of � - O oQ o(n 0 UO F- Z O Fn U O O O U) A O O O d d a) a Z co U ami U a) o a� Q ami E� Fu M L LI LJJ L d ai ai c m U m ` m a° Q — — Q m '� � � D �° U) m >, _0 U U O� COami 0 p z /�� ami N E ai -� 20 L c L L r (n .i< CO �/ E 0 0 0 o a) - o a � o W U co a O m cn 0- co <L -L Z 2i Z Q IL)}I p z Y W LII w''' ■ Q J /��..y'I !/!•y.,,/I !i_ .-l� ! kI 1! n '\ � J'�✓ :l'/ ! f/?'.''.. J'f{ J W /1 i O f//� �/ ♦ N v - 2i - - rm - 0 LU U) LU 0_ L.1_ Cl) CD NO N In Lr w W c = Q O w J w Q F- U) U) W � 0 LULU Q 0 W O� J � J (7 LU LU Z_ W Jz Y = Q= o V 2U O Cl) U �_ r Z_ Y PROPOSED BY — LAW 2023 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 — King -Charles Properties (Kitchener) Limited — 1001 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 Number 143 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 544R to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 544R, Special Regulation Provision 788R and Holding Provision 100H. 2. Schedule Number 143 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcels of land specified and illustrated as Area 2 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 544R and Special Use Provision 401 U to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 544R, Special Regulation Provision 788R, and Holding Provision 100H. 3. Schedule Number 143 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 4. Appendix "D" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 788 thereto as follows: Page 315 of 601 788. Notwithstanding Sections 5.9, 6.1.2 and 55.2 of this By-law within the lands zoned MU -3 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Schedule Number 143 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply: a) The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 8.1. For clarity, the floor space ratio shall be calculated based on a pre -road widening lot area of 6,492 square metres. b) The minimum yard abutting Charles Street East shall be: i. 1.2 metres for the ground floor ii. 0.0 metres for storeys above the ground floor For clarity, the setback shall be measured based on the post -road widening lot line. c) The minimum yard abutting King Street East shall be: i. 1.2 metres for portions of the building containing commercial, residential and amenity uses; ii. 5.0 metres for portions of the building containing mechanical and/or parking structure. For clarity, the setback shall be measured based on the post -road widening lot line. d) Live -work units shall be permitted to be located on the ground floor fronting Charles Street East. e) On-site Parking shall be provided as follows: Use Minimum Off -Street Parking Spaces Required Multiple Dwelling 0.54 spaces per unit Visitor 0.1 spaces per unit and shall be shareable with ground floor non-residential uses Ground Floor Non- 0 spaces Residential Uses f) Bicycle parking is to be provided as follows: Use Class A Bicycle Stall Class B Bicycle Stall Multiple Dwelling 0.5 per unit 6 For the purposes of this regulation a 'Class A Bicycle Stall' shall be a bicycle space which is either in a building or structure or within a secure Page 316 of 601 area such as a supervised parking lot or enclosure with a secure entrance or within a bicycle locker. For the purposes of this regulation a `Class B Bicycle Stall' shall be a bicycle space which is located in accessible and highly visible locations near the entrance of a building and are accessible to the general public. g) A minimum of 20 percent of the parking spaces required for multiple dwellings shall be designed to permit the future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment. h) Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited." 5. Appendix "F" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 100H thereto as follows: "100. Notwithstanding Section 55 of this Bylaw, within the lands zoned MU -3 and shown as being affected by this Subsection on Schedule Number 143 of Appendix "A": i) No residential use shall be permitted until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) has been filed on the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Environmental Site Registry in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, as amended. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Regional Municipality of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) advising that a Record of Site Condition has been filed. ii) No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a a detailed transportation (road), vibration and stationary noise study has been completed and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the points of reception (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo advising that such noise study or studies has been approved and an agreement, if necessary, has been entered into with the City and/or Region, as necessary, providing for the implementation of any recommended noise mitigation measures." Page 317 of 601 6. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _, (1001 King 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 2023. Mayor Clerk Page 318 of 601 Z d' [ z 2' p a a L W W Z wz0 w O Ln U)u7 LU Z Z LU Z Z a. F- O O N Z a N N N u Y a E o E D —W (n Cn D Q W (1J (n w U LU NO U W O J W z 2 Q � O 0 Z 0 >> > >j0 > 0 O t- t- Z w Q m =� O� � 2 2 o C) �= �t0 o 2 o Z a J J J O Q Q Q H Z 0 w W W L m Q Y Q N aw a azw a Q� o wwwzFN2 W ZLL, Q z Y Y o o w a�� o- Z = 0 0 0 0 X Z N O J Y U) Q z Q~ Q O W (n w z Q 0 F- Q O W cn NcnQ} cn cn LU W z a W W W w N O w z CW.) U r O c7 Q J J J H z �w J Of w J D U QO z Q F- U) �FY�OOcnz z w > H O>XW U z W F- O z O V m W F- W z c=law (�7 O W W F- W p[ 2 Q Q Q w O o Lu N w (n (n W Q Q Q Q Z N N \O N Z O �Z�zza a �Z��ZZFY a a U U U w Z z w U w Q z w L Q z =N< N< z MOQQC=7NQ z - 0 w w w C7 70 Q z a z z z z - w C) Z X N 0 m Q a �U-WU �U- �v Lu Q 0Oaco- 2 zm = z o O O O Uwwww = z g g g g c7 0W0� J z w a0wz N N 0 F= z °z� �oaO'OOa00-j oawM a��0a��= cD w c~n U U U X w x w w w w w C� 0 a w � �w ���a�o= WWQ�����00w0C� ��00 Jzz�NC?LL, zchzOOCa'a'� `' Z2QU w Of r2��O—QO—zz�aQ-zQO-zz QQwU�F-0 zz< U�QF-U�QQ i `� O mUNU a a 0 0 UU W _ N 0 Q N In co oo Na OC OC O U a N(nOY Q w a C G }'W p r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, N N/� IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII M W Z CO ' D f� • jj T Q `~ .N Ili. (IIIIIIIIIII N G V ' V III C? Z *z- jjjj�IIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 IIIIIIIIIIII m OJ 1 M Q� (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII M /� J Q w > 1 � � IIIIIIII IWVVVIIIIII U V Z U w 0 � 1 n VIII IIIppI (IIIIIIIIII — Z — LL � '�. INp1 �� M � III M IIIIIIIII C%4 IIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIII 0 LL 1 r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II N IIIIIIIIIII � W = III V � IIIIIIIIIII � N V� O NO N <D N LO 1 �� Ln W N 1 �� O IIIIIIIIII 04 c) c)� CD W p 2 c) ¢ IIIIIIIIII T � � Q' 1 V� moi. IIII����� N """IIIIIIIIIII 2�` () QV N p 1 (IIII Q LO CV v U Q yl 1``� r in 0 IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII In IIII N N � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII Q = IIIIIIIIIII 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II in 1 �S1 IIIIIIIIIIIIII M IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII W N 1 a IIIIIIIIIIIIII V u> V LO jj VI Wl°I°°Wuuuuuum D 1 W W H 1 III j In Q02 - W 1 I u IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII O J (A 1 r 0V I (IIIIII � IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII II u 2 IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Z a — 1 1�1�V � ^� � IIIIII W LLlil Z IIIIIIIIIIIIIIV M N N � oe J �1 1 IIIIII � � N 04 N1j11111111 LIJ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIV U H ! n ' Y ciLn M 11111111111111 IIIIIIIIII Z IIIIII' �M IIIIIIIIII iI Y Ln �MQ U.) CO �,i�m �r m�immp��ru+rar�uY�r>'d r r iiUirir/rDiOr I I m 4- 4- u Q) - -0 (1) E -= 0 4- Ln 4- 0 (D 0 Q)Q) > U -0 E 0 w o > 10- 4- 0 73 -0 0 0- Q) (U Q) o 0- 75 n 0 0 Q) Ln 4- 0 V) F- Ln 0 Q) E Q) u < _0 :t-_ c :Z E 0 Q) L -Cu Q) 4- T- M 14- . LD g -o' 0 4- o u 0 >, u (D -0 N - Q) U Q) E 1-n :t-- V) =5 E U u Q) Q) Ln -C W +- (U Q) Q) ELn 0 0 0 vi -�D- Om > _ 4- C) C- rn o Q) 4- -�2 M = Q = Q) 0 Ln 4- tf E u > Ln Q) 0 CD.- CD.- 0 4L, M M 4- -0 E Q) Q) Q) 4- L/) n 4-- m w(1) L/) > -C -0 Ln (1) c U Q) CD- 4 (1) Q) V) 4- Vl 0 Q) 4- 4-- (_n C)) 0 M .= =3 x Q) Ln Q) 4- Q) L/) L/) cn Q) Ln 0 Qj r- m u (D 4-1 Ln Q) 4-- cD --i V) cn V) 0) (D Q)vi o 2! U cr- U CN A-- C) 4- Q) 4- V) L) > Q) LLJ u (1) -= =3 (1) Ln 4- - ca Q) (1) 1-n 4-o - 4- U-) 4- 0 v4-; Ln 0 z 0 CD u 0-)4- (:D co Q) 4-- 0 C"l CD Q) �n - IT 0 Q) -0 CL Q)0 Q) - =5 CD un cO CD Q) 0 =L/) Qm ) 4- 4- (1) nLn Q) 0 4--0 - 0 0 70- 4- Ln Q) E = < cc 0 V) 0 ice' - 4 - LJ 0 CL - V) 4- m u 4- 0 V) 0 LLJ 0 Q) o E I-- 4-1 0 — 0 (a) f o 4- 0) W 1A 0 c CD () m E (1) O o vi 4- 0 n E 0 MEAN= Q) 0- 0 U , r"I I 4- ui > 4- (1) Q) (1) E Ln - 4- 14- Q) >0 E 4- 0 E '2, Q) 4-1 u 0 .- 4- Q) o 4- 'n o 0- 0 '4- Q) V) 0 0 Q) C) C)- 2 _0 - 14-- 4- .- 0 Ln Q) U) . ..... .. ..... ..0 0 0- . ..... .. ..... ..•> o 0- o u 4- < = m 4- Ln 0 (D 4-1 u 10- o Q) V) Q) Q) -0 o 4- o U 4 Q) =5 E U u 0 0)14- 0 0 0 Ln 0 > 4L, 2 Q- m o :t-- UJ 4- Q) L/) > Ln (1) c U 4- Q) u M 0- 4-- (_n C)) 0 M .= =3 Ln Q) L/) L/) cn C 4 -- Ln 0 Qj 0 4-1 Ln 4-- 4-- V) cn 0) (D 0 o U 0 u C)*) L) > Q) V) -0 4- Ln 0 E2 4-0 Q) 4-- 0 Ln Q)0 Q) U nLn 0 0- 0 D s u 0 0 ice' - Ln LJ 0 V) Q) u 0 LLJ 0) o E I-- 4-1 0 — 0 0) W O o o 0 4-- Q) E U -0 4- E E 0 U 4- E Q) 0 '4- 0 4-1 = 0 - 14-- 4- .- 0 Ln Q) U) 0 0- 0O o o c: 5, Ln o o 0 U > V) V) 4 v)Q) Ln Q) 0 �n u Ln u x Ln ±2 - - - m=> w 0 Q) 0- o 0 Q) > > N m00 0 0 < Lo Lo — 6) rn — 0- CN CN 0 0 m 0 co 4.- 0 (a) — — (a) 'o (a) ra 4- 4- ru -0 4- 1 U �4- ca 0 0 4- 0 0 L/) (a) 0-) 0 0 V) -�9 u .5 wm 4- 0 Q) U m Q) 0 0 r-) m ru - (a) 0 4- U-) 4- U m ul ru 4- 0 n 4- r, wCD 1-4- 0 0 Q) 0 > Q) 0 Q) (- °= 4--N 0 - V) 0- o Ln >1 V) 4- 0 0 C) (1 ) m 0 0 0 u "o U 4- -C X V) M cn ru0(1) U -J 0 (a) 0 > 0 U Q) -C Q) C) 4- V) 4- Q) 4- (13 Q) 0 7C) Ca 0 V) — (a) 0) 77�4- v) 0 M 4- x Q) Q) Q) s cu u > =3 V) 4-1 ru 0 =3 ra Q) 0 4- L/) ru > U Ln V) M wm 10- LLJ < 0) DL (a) 4- 4- CU (a) G� 'a) u Q) u o 4- -0 Q) Q) t _0 00 4- 0 4- -0 Q) > 4t 4'Z 0 4 /) Q 0 — 0 0 u 0 Q) Ln CD,) n V—) u (L) Q) 0-) C 4- •LD Q) Q) (1) Q) 0 v0 Q) u (a) Q) -C V) > 4- Lr) 4-0 14- U 0r3 -p 0 Q) 0 n 4- v,ai 4- E Q) m (- Q)0 0 V) — >- m V) u 4t V� -.2 0 U 0 4- E Q) Q) V) 0 v o,4- (1) CY) Q) CY) I I 4- c 4- 4- 'E 0 L/) ru 4- 0 Q) Q) 0- 4 (a) — V) 0 V) 0 0 4 4- 4- n 4- 4-j 0- 4- V) 4- w 0 Q) �: 0 CU 0C) 4- 4- 2 Ln m E 4-- 0- -0 Q) 0 u D 0 C- 0 Q) Q) L -Li x Q) 4-1 4 --0 Q) Q) > Ln M Q) -C a) 4- Q) 0 Q) 0 m V� -0 Q) " Ln 0 4- +- Ln 0 0 0 u 0 u --o 4- - (-n > Q) (D Ln = E 0- Q) Q) 14+f 0 C c �6 0 u Q) 0 Q) 0 -4- L/) 0 4- 4- (a) > U (1) 4- M u - < 4- 0 4- Q) V) — Q) ±� Q) — m Lf) .— E V) (a) cn C) (a) 4- > Q) L -n un V) 0 Q) 0 Q) (D) > 0 0 0 Q) 0 4- 0 4- Ln Ln o > �: Ln o L") u 4- Ln W L/) L/) (D 0 — 0 -0 0- u C (1) --) -0 o 0 CD 4-1 a) 70- •E =5 0- M V) m , 4-0 V) Q) 4- C) 0- uaJ L/) 0 (D •wi)4- 0 V) 0 4- Ln E Q) X 0 o Y, 0 4- U *§ E Q) 0 > 0 -L2 E �6 - o 0 4- Q) = co U (a) Q) Q) u u — M < — < V� m Fo-E Q) 0 Lij 0) E Q) 4-- M Q) ID- 0 0- 0 co 4.- 0 m r� IVI W Cc �"— cc ul Al d�d C3 Lc e w jI AV N30?JOS 27 1— �� (1) Q) — ru 4- m -0 E 0 (D (D (D 0 — — 0- Q) V) 4- M :3 Q) -C M Ln LU 0 -- 4- U 4- > > �n Q) 4- 0 E u vi VI 4 =3 Q)Q) u 0 Ln 4- Q.- 4- QJ QJ Q) Q) 4r- 04- 4 - E 50 = m = Ln .NE 4- CD- E Q)Ln u Q) Ln Q) (D u E > 0-) 0 CD- Q) Q) LU _0 -0 V) u 0 Q) -0 x 0-0 Q) .c. 0 =3 0 m Co > < 0 M -0 CD - 0 4- (.n u U 4- o Q) m 0) V) m m F- Cc -0 aJ 140- u 0 4- 4- (70 > n Q) Ln 0 0 4- U 0 Ln (D 1� M § u 0 4- o ra Ln QJE 1 0 75 4-1 C Cl C Q) 0 O0- Q 0- ) u 4-- 0 Q) L 0) Ln V ) u Ln Q) ra I > u 4 > 0 u 4 4- w0 Q) V) 4- V) M V) 4- 0 Q) m 0 4- = 0 � D 0 0- 4- Q) n 4-- 0 U 2 T 0 Q) W 0 n Q) C u 4-� L, u 0 4t Q) > 4--4-- -.S� m w (.0 4-- 0 C-0 N 0 0 > t: < (U 4,1 E O u 0 --o 0 0 Z 0 LD 0-) UDWW=00)�nc) Q) LnU 4- Q) -0 0- Q) m 0 Q) 0 c- 1— �� (1) Q) — ru 4- m -0 E 0 (D (D (D 0 — — 0- Q) V) 4- M :3 Q) -C M Ln LU 0 -- 4- U 4- > > �n Q) 4- 0 E u vi VI 4 =3 Q)Q) u 0 Ln 4- Q.- 4- QJ QJ Q) Q) 4r- 04- 4 - E 50 = m = Ln .NE 4- CD- E Q)Ln u Q) Ln Q) (D u E > 0-) 0 CD- Q) Q) LU _0 -0 V) u 0 Q) -0 x 0-0 Q) .c. 0 =3 0 m Co > < 0 M -0 CD - 0 4- (.n u U 4- o Q) m 0) V) m m F- Cc -0 aJ 140- u 0 4- 4- (70 > n Q) Ln 0 0 4- U 0 Ln (D 1� M § u 0 4- o ra Ln QJE 1 0 75 4-1 C Cl C Q) 0 O0- Q 0- ) u 4-- 0 Q) L 0) Ln V ) u Ln Q) ra I > u 4 > 0 u 4 4- w0 Q) V) 4- V) M V) 4- 0 Q) m 0 4- = 0 � D 0 0- 4- Q) n 4-- 0 U 2 T 0 Q) W 0 n Q) C u 4-� L, u 0 4t Q) > 4--4-- -.S� m w (.0 4-- 0 C-0 N 4- u Q) Q) 4- = = 0 0 -.0 Q) Q) -2 0 Q) -;o - m L/) LL) Q) > V) rn = V) -= U E c- C) u 0 0 0 4- Q) Q) . -L- 75 V) 0 v 0 Q) V Q) Q) 4- U 4- 0 CL Q) 'S _ 4- o 14- 4-- In U 0 0 Q) E Q) 0 E V 4-- V) >V) , Ln 0 V) V) 0 E Q) C- 0 07 Q) Q) +— �: = 4- u (UD -0 E = 0- u �n 4-zs 14-- E co) - 0) > 0 Q) ru z > 2 Q) rva Ln Q) -0 o , --) Q) -= 4- Q) 01 Ln 4-- Q) CD Q) 4- 0 0 — E 4 -j ra U -J 4 0 U D 0 > Q) 0) -0 4- Q) L) Q)E U 4- E (a) 7D 0 - L/) -0 m > > T)- LI) o o (1) (A Ll) U 4- W 4-- C) (VD) Ln ccl),- -7) > 4.- 4- 4- =5 L/) - =- 4- 4- V) M w0 L/) Ln c- 4- — E m (a) cv V) N 4- 4- 0 0 > m— E 4 Ln Q) n 0-) CO Q) 0 Q) o o 0-) �n Ln - E CY) o Q) = 2! Ln V) 04- U u 4- (1) = U > O 0 4— u Q) 4- -0 '- Ln (a) C� 4 Q) Q) o Q) 'L 0 0 Ul 4- 0- CY) 7) 0 0 0 0 4-- Q) U 4- ( -t--E uU� V) 4'fl \�' 0 n :3 0- = 0 Q) V) U 0 Q)Q) Q) V) () Cn ryl- Ln 0 0 �J- 0 0 4t (DLn > co u (D > U -J E Q) E c Q) U --e-) Q) E E w 0 U X 0 LU In- V 4 0 4- Ln Q) 0 0— Q) > 0 0 0 E 0 4- Q) Ln Ln z Q) E Q) u 0 x 14- 0 0 '�- (1) (1) u 0 ra - Lf) - L/) 0 (1) �4- Lf) > 0 0 0 - 0 > C) 4- Q) 14- o 0 C 0 o o Q) (1) 0 Ln — 0- aJ 4- ru (a) u= 0 4-1 > Ln M Ln Ln LU Q) Ln +- 4- ru C)- co 14M- 4- 0 n o (a) 4- x m E E I 4-j 4- 0 C-ai 0 4- V) c- E 0 4-- +- 0 > 0 ru- W M 4- - > EQ) - L-/) �cn '40- (Dn -0 = 0 (10 .— " - 4- - 0 4- n > E 0 "I -N u Ln 0 o 4-' 4-- Ln .— x 0 L.0 aJ Q1(D 4-- E2 oLn 0- o -u V) 0 .= C 0 0 Ln14- C -'o U 4- 'V) 0 4'j -0 Ln Ln 0 L/) U Co C QJ C > 0 0 Zi 4-- 0 Ln N W a) '— > -0 E " m 4- 0 L/) E 0 'E 21) 0) Q) C: 0- - 21) > 0 Q) 4- 4- V) -0 CD) 0 M m -0 4- 4- 0 Ln 0 0- c 0 u 0- 0 < 4- Q) c: c: 0 0- o oc Q) Q) . -L- 75 V) V Q) 4 - 4- < 4- U CL Q 'S _ 4- o 14- 0 4- u 0 E cu 0 (11 0 E 4-- V) >V) , 0 V) 4-1 14- 07 Q) cu o (UD -0 E = 0- E co) - 0) aJ E > Q) IN 0 C-0 4- 0 CD N co 0 C-0 4- 0 0 co m Q) w w 4- Q) -0 -= =0 LI) _0 0 4-- ra Q) E Ln :3o 1 C6 ra >\ 75 -0 0 E 4 o Q) co 'E Q) 0 m -;-- w U = U -0 u (10 x --- E Ln Q) M 1� 0 ru Cu -0 Ln Q) Qj - u E ru u m 4- Q) cu 0 - N >\ 0 1- Ln (1) co u - Ln co >1 4- M 0 Q) Q) -7(D — 4- L,) m 0 14- 0 L/) Ln M C -0 co 0V) O';_- 0 -C -0 4- 0) 0 (a) C)4 -' u Ln Q(1) 4-1 V) CO > - 0 U 4- co Q) co Q) - > -70 7C) 4- -0 0 (1) ro L, o o Ln Q) 0 u 0 0 -7 0 n u 0 Q) E E U 0 = 0 >, 0 m +- V) 0 (1) Lq �,o u = Q) V) m c in Q) oo Q) E -0 Rn 75- 0 o E a) -0 0 - 0)— �4- 4- m = M Q) +0- C 3: a) u Q) > Q) Q) 4- 0 0 76 4- -§ 0 (A E c (D 0 > Q) �G E E 0 E -rl M -;-- (u 2 E Q) m 00 4- Q) Q) c Q) u CD- > o- V Q) -N = Q) QJ 4 U W C Q) Q ru -I 140- > Ln '40- Q) 0 > Q) 4- 0 V) 0- 0) aj CD - o (- V) 4� 4- m =F - C 0 -�70 =5 14-- 4- 4-1 0 Q) M - 0 L, n (- = m 4- 0 Ll) 4- 0 >1 0 [2 4- Q) 0 Q) E Q) -0 0 (1) C) > Q) ( M 0 - o 14- Q) co -7-7QJ L/") aJ Q) Q) -0 -0 Q) 4_ = 4- m CDL Ln 0 -')2E --o 0 Q) -0 uj 0 5; - 0- Ln 0 -0 0 0 2 -6 x -0-- - (1) -�7, (1) 4-C 0 ru 0- 00 4- 4- 0 Ln (D 0- 0 QJ U Ln o :2 aJ (D r6 > 4-- > QJ C C° u 0 ru E m 0 D 0 M Q) m — 0- E >1 0- 0 W +- 11, m 0 0 E Qo)- >1 CU 4-- 0 0 (u -0 0 =- Q) 0 Q) 0 - Q) 0 U ru Ln -0 co .-L- E 0 >, (D c m -0 4-1 Q) = ED- � . = 4- Ln 0 �-D 0- Q) -0 Q) 0 0 7D Q) 0') ro Q) >, - n Vi 4- Y) Q) 0- > Q) Ln (1) 3: 0 Q) -7u = Ez (U (1) 0 Itf- 0 - D- 0 V) o E E -�5 0 Q) 0 0 n - 0 > (a) E r) 0) . LI) t_) 0 Q) u -i Q) Q) -,o u C Q) -0 0 -0 E 4- > Q) 0 0 (2) -0 x 0 0 , Q) 7, Q) 4(-- (a) U m -0 0 o (a) 0 Ln 0 0 Lo E 0 -0 Q)4- = o Ln -.0 u m >, 0- 0 -7"n u 0 0) Q) 0- 'n 0 4- 0 0- W LQI)) W 4- 0-) Q) . ..... .. ..... .. 2 < -0- Qx) 70- o co 0 C-0 4- 0 0 co m I • • a H ru0 4- V) 4- ..e Q) aJ = T< 0 Z- 4- CL CL ra 4 - un (A m o) (D 0 — u M CA Q) 4- E c (Z CU 4 - Ln0 a) Q) 4-- 0 of0 u > r 4- > Q) 4- -1 0 V) m 4- 4- E m .- 0-) Q) (Z Q) Q) . = V) Q) :3 > m > 4- (U " 0 I- kA 0 Ln Q) C = 4-- =5 4- u r CL 2 V) 4- V) Q) Q) 14 > 4- L/) L,) (D 4- 0 4- CO Q) Q) 0-V) E V) = E (10a) - o m (a) Q) 0 (uu E 0 0 m 4- C) 0 -@ 2 Q) u 0 -0 u E 0 4- C lJ v V) m >C: w Q) Li -i C: E (10 co 4- > LLJ X 4- 4- 0 (a) W Q) Q) ry- Q) > as Cu 4- u 0 4� -j 0 Ln 4- 0) W i31 %- 0 Ln (,n (a) > V) 0 • (a) 0 Q:� 7D .9 0 (A 0 4- 0 C) o O 4- co u L') 14- 0QJ Ln Ln Q) 4-- C C- 0 DL 0 EiA c- L/) LJ.J 4- Q) c U W M M > 4- V) ru -0 0 - 0 J) Co M > 0 X 4 f - o V) 4-1 E U _0 v°J > 0 u 0) Q) u 4- 0 C- x 4-- C: Q) u 0 r 14- m E 4- V) u LLJ o 0 U m V� Q) 4t W ru m m > 0 c cn o - O A m u Q) Ov = - I Q) V) W4- V) M — (1) V) u c Q) cu0 U E o 0 (u (D 4- 4-m 4.- E m 2 E -F Ln Q- CL Q) u V) u kA Q) V)4- 0 > LLJQ) �) u 4-- 4� 0 LU u (Z (D Q) Q) m M — E Q) Q) -6 (D = V) m n CL E v 0 Q) 4- C: _0 M :3 14- 0 =) 0 -0 Q) 4- V) Q) E C- C: 0 " vn --o 0 u u 0 o 4- 0 = C: 4- VI 0 m 6 V) cu vw4- MMW 70- L/) CL m E Q) V) Z) 4-1 u V) m 0 0 0 c Q) CT 4-1 :3 Z' 5, D 2 E oj > V9 = E 0) Q) 0- 0 m vi A 4- Ln c 0 V) 0) Q) C V) v � Q)QJ Q > W > E (1) (a) D LLJ Q) -0 > 4- �E T > 4- u (1) V, 0 2 2 " U U a (L) (A Q- Q- > < �z < 4t L/ u < u 2 (A > V aJ aJ QJ ) O u Q) Q) Q) 2! E w v 46 0 4- Q) u cL 4- -rl�5 Q) Ln E 1) u QJ T) �n C) c') 0 LLJ u Z u — WAVE= Q) 0 4- E - 0 (10 > Q _Z3 Q5) 4- Q) (p) (4) 4- >, 0 C) Qu Ln C =) 0 V) (1) �6 S� Q) 4QJ 'n CS Q) u E Q) 0) vi Qj 4� ) Qj C-= Q 4� Q- c) co C un 4- 4- 4- 3: zz m co m 4- 4-- Q) -C Ln QJ -0 0 L/) ul Qn U qj (i) , (1) >, 14- -- I _Q Z- U.j < 0 0 Q) 4- QJ E 'S F z 0 C- Q) E 0 0 -Z a.O Q) E oi 0 LLJ 4- Ln QJ c - QJ E 4- ruQ.) 4- Q) 0 0 q CS CS 4- Q3 Y CL Qj 12 (a) 4- QjQL) Q: C� C) 4- <0- 1 Z5 (3) C�- u z = 4- r) 0 Q C-�) Q) (D Ln E 0 E Q) 'F > u -0 4- 0 Q)0 4- - J2 .�) - 14-7 N a2 Q 0 > Q) u Z 0 r- 4- C)v Ln _0 -0 Q> - 0 ) Q: 0 In 0 Qu Q5 0 (D c E 4 - CZ E (u 4 0 z m0 In Q) u Lij u . - Q) v(4) E Q) -0 om Q) C) QJ Z- .- .—= Q) u 4-- 0 0 tl1 vi U > 0 Q) c U u 4- -0 0 Q3 0) -0 0 0 u 14- 0 4-1 -0 - Q) ii fl 4- - (1) 4- 0 Ol u 0 4- 0 4- CC 7C) Cn Qj Q) Q) u 0 0 >"4.- -"u C) Qj - 4- 0-.7) 0 3: �G —,- 4 - LL. .>-.= E o 0 LL. 0) 0 u BU -0 u Q) LLj LIJ U.J 0 Q.) QU -0 (3) U) Q) 3: m CL - Si Q) m Q QJ 4-1 -0 i. - C- 4- ME= Q) 0 u ( U(10 C) ti (1) 0 Z �4- U D Qj QJ z u o = Ln Q) (3) (1) — LLJ LLJ u -0 -0 0 72) _0 Q3) ZL MOMM u �E Q) 0- 0 Q) Z�::(Z) Q) LjU -0 --j viQ) 4 -0 4- Q) 4- U u 4-3 L) (-/) m 0 = m 0 o tl 4-�> cu z 0 u u 0 Q) Q) 0 0 QJ r- 3: Q-) m C) = Q) . ul QJ Q) 0- �g > QJ F— 71 a u — . u> 0 — _0 QJ 7z-- (D Q) Q) M (1) 0 V- C �- ::) Q) = aJ O 0 4- C 0 Q) in4- QJ pl 4- 0 _0 0 u Q) C) 0 0 4- U (10 4- O QJ E Cu _0 C vi O O o 0-) 0 0 0 CD) 0 o QJ -Z) 0 4- M :t-- z cu 75 4- 0 Qj 0 --Z v 0 Ln QL) � N 11 14- "n C: Q) > V) 76 p CS In QL) CU 9 '40 o o Qj Z -C N cu C4) QJ Qj Q 0 -0u 0 Qj u CS M u , Q) - Z O O c 14- c - 0 0 qj QJ 0 'n a 4- 'o E C1 QJ > (D -0 x ID CD c 0 Q) Qu Q: CU Q> -0 ,U N -TZ 4- zz- r3 0 4t 0 In to QJ = 0 QL) QL) Qj Q,) Qj 0 D- Q) .4- Co Zz z Qn Q) 0 .2 0 .0 4- QL Qj co QJ O 0 14 0 ZL 0 0 0 fl.Z -0 cu o LD R cr. M CC 0 M 0 Q Z_ E QL) x L.= -A U) cn 0 .N C- o= QJ L/) 4- 4- 4- 0) Q) 4- u +- 6 • Q) C F u = Ln 0 4- (a) > �6 Q) 0) 4- x U') Ln E r-) >1 Q) V) Q) Q) 75 Ln U 4- > _0 Q) w 0 u V) Ln Ln E U 0 0 co Q) V) Q) 0 L/) 0 >1 u 4- u W (L) Q) Q) 4- C, 0 Cn 4- 4-- co f2 Q 4- Q) 0 4- 4- cn > m j) (1) ?: — - (3) c 4 4- -E2 n Q) u 4- X4- C- (- - Q) 4- 75(1) .4- U Z) u Ln 0 L -n 2 4- Ln u 0 Q) U Q) o > U (1) m C- 0 > = m .0) Q) 4- 4- CS z:z U 0- 'F E L/ (1) >, Q) U 0 -0 V� n QJ 6 U ± Q) Q) Q) Q) L� m u v c o Q) Ln 0 Ln 4- c Q) Q) V) E > Q) 0 LnCO o > = — 4" -0 0 — - - (-) 4- 0 V) c) > 0 4- Q)4- (10 Ln 0 > 0 22 o) y L/) u (D) — 4- v ZS 0 , = (D -0 Q) Q) Ln 0 Q) m' = C: E U C) V) Ln U 4- 7:3 0- 'Z 0 -0 76 (j) -0 0) m �j 4- 0 Q) 4- 0 Ln V) 4-U 4- 4- Q) 0 > — (U E E -0 >� 2 0- cl�5 -i�i 0 u C: E Q) w C) o-�3 Ln Ln U > C)z Q) 0 c > o LL Q) V) Q) Q) u 4- n CD - Q) Q) U-) Q) 14- (a) 4- to 4- 0 > 0 0) 0 4-� ul Ln +1-- vi Ln 0 4- Q) Q) u Q) -0 L) QJ vo > C� ra C) 0 0 Q) +- +- 0 4- 4-- U C) — u < Q) u 0 •u) Q) E E Ou 0 -E w c L/) 0 4- M 7C) u Ln 0 0 L C) 4- 4- Ln 4-10 wj) 4- 0 4- u 7:3 0-1 = (1) U) 0) 0 4- V) Q) u 4- m CD- (1) u 4- CD LA 0) Co --o Q n N -0 4- 0 Q) E > L -i Ln C) 0 u 0 'o Q) U- n 0) 4- 4-4- 4-4- 0 u 0 Wo o o Q Q) m Q U 4- 0 Ln V) 4- > u C-0 - C-) 0) 0 L5 4-- Q) Q) W -0 > -0 0 0') 4-- n 5-n q) U > LLJ E n> U 0) 0).E C) (1) -0 4-1 U) CN 0- - 4-0 CD- (1) Lj_j 0 4- 7C) u m -0 C)- Ln 0to Q) 4-1 Ln 0 > u0 LD 0 CD - 0 4- 0- (D V) 0 4- U > u Q) Q) 2 o C', o- u < CD- c S QJ 0 14- u 0 4- *90 4- 0 r - co M 0 - .� u (1) (1) -0 -0 L/) E 0 L/) —,- = -0 Q) aJ m •q Q) 4- '> - _0 0 0 .0 u C 4- 4- - .7 L/) co Q) 0 0 7u -QJ Q) c 0 0 7C) 4- 4- 0 Ln u 0- m 4 E Ln 0 Ln 0 0) =3 -0 V) 4- 0 4- L/) .0 (/� 0- �n V) 0 U.) QJ 0 0 4- Q) c- 4- 0 u Q) C.1- u 4-a-' 0 LLJ 0 �t-- Cs 0- 0) c- 0-)--o < 0 x Q) (1) m 0 C 0 (a) Q) 4- C: T) 4t 0 (u QJ Q)C _I C51 Q Z54 - QJ -,Fo V) E 4- 4.- u0 0 M /) --o Q) u 4- 0 4- 4- c u Ln Q) ry-) Ln > m 4 m E 0 4-- V) Q) M 0 0 -C 4-- 41 E w— V) —() — U-) 0) Q) Q) 0 E 0 Q) > < 0u 4- D -u u u4- 0 0 14- 4- 4t CT r6 QJ CS1 Q) 4-_ u 0 Q) N< 4(:� QJ QJ 0 Q) QJ ) 4- C- > 4- u (1) Q) Co 4- V) +- W o L/) 4- 2! co 0 0 n 4- 14- 0 — - 3: E 40- �2 , +- u u 4--3' 0- 0_ 4- V) E14- Q) (- E L/) 0 0 m -= 4- Q) -0 4- 014- 4- 4-0 ra -Fo m 0 ry- -J (1) 0 Q) (>L) 4- 4 1 c -0 12 2) -0 0) 4- 4- u -0 4t 0- (3) (a) L/) --- 0 4- .0 (1) -0 (1) (- r Q) Q) Q) >, 2! 14- 4- 4- u =) c o Q) Q) Q m >1 . Q) 4-; Q) 4- 4- 0 LI) E 3: /) n aJ 0 U 0 -0 \11 4- 0 > = Q) U _0 C)) U -J 4- 0_ 0 = m 0 C)) > 0 C: Q) 4--; (3) V) 4- Q) Q) 0 * 7) U -0 0 M 14.- Q) u Cn.4-- o Ln 0 -0 " -0 Ln --C) 4- (2) C 0 0) C) (o 0 V) U (L) --Q 2 V) -C .4- -1 U QJ 4- Q) Ln 0) 4 V) UU > c 0 un q- 4- u 0 u 0 Q) 0 0 = - V) 0 U4- .0 E CU Ln 4-- Q) 4- D 0 Q) u Q) 4-- Q) 0 E Q) Q) 4-1 L/) 4 -0 0 4- Q) u o QJ Q) Ln E _0 L/) Q) u Ln u Q) 4-- = 0 -0 0 4�' > n u < D_ (1) 4t (13 0 U 4- 0 -0 V) CL) 0 0 0 _0 u c: -0 > V) <u 0 0 0 o W Ln 4- 0 4- > 0 Q) Q) 11 1 LI) 5 (z o m = (") (a) V) -0 7C3 0- ry C -0 Q) -0 Q) 0 L < 0 _0 0 LD 0 V) 4 -Ln) E 0- (a) C) Q) Q) V) 4- E m Q) 0 > 4- Ln = Q) 4- > 4- 0 0- 0 0 0 m = �: 0 E (D - 4- U Q) �: C 0) a) Q) Lj� 0 - c- 4t < L) 4- U )_0p 0 .4- Q) E L/j- v) 4- E 0 Q) 0 �n Q) V) Q) U E 0 u a) > V) 0 0 4-- V\,) Q) v) V) u E - -0 Q) 0 Ln ~ Q 0 ( O-0 0 > u u 0 E Q) Q) 4-- >CSS m u -o 4- Q) LU o c- E -0 -o o u 0 Q) V) Q) Ln Ln Q) 0 -0 :) :3 1 -- Ln +- 4- u F, 75 Q) Ln 0 4- W 4- 0 V) > -0 u (D 0 u Qj (:) 0 4- > (a) (3) 'n (1) ';-- E Q U Ln + 0 (a 4- o Ln I V) 14-- M V) 4- < 7) \' 0 0 0) — = -0 C: _0 -0 0- QJ 0 0 cu > 0 0) 0- Q) cu - +- - - u Ln 0- 0 a) 0-.- 4 4-1 > > 0 - Q) 4- 4-- E o < 0 < < < o -0 Q � m (3) 0 00 0 4- = 4- M 4- 0 00 co co ca C) N 4- Q) Q) Q) >1 (2) 0) Q) m 0 4- 0 U) 70- (a) 7) 0 I-- CY) , . E - D E LD .- Q) 0 '4- U Q)E = u Q) 4-1 0 E 4- =4- Ln u 4- cn 0 E E E .0 c o L/) --o V) Q) Q) 4- OU u u M W = W Q) 0 4- u M c- Q) n 4-1 co W 4- 0 0 LU W 4- 2 Q) > -0 Q) _0 0 Q)7 0 E Q) 0) • E Q) Q) Q) L/) 4- — n Q) v) +- 4-1 co o Q) " M V) 0 4- 0 o -=m u 4- 0 0 U 4-1 0 U .= 4 U >, > 0- C) 4-1 4-Qa Ura Q 0 0 CU V) r- 2 4- 14- - �n 0 u Q) 0 0 0 Ln E (D Q) 0 o V) u Q) Ln Q) 0-0 0 \1 T) o Ln =5 o Ln >, 4- Ln Q) Q) Q) c- 4- =3 C)- = 4-1 , = — M Lf) (1) 6 Q)M-Q) u Q) noo(D=3: E 4- cu Q) Q) 0 Q) U V) - Q) 0 4- m Q) (1) Ln 4- X Q) > Q) Q>J u =3 Q)4 CD co 14 7D m u 4- V) - 0 = < LLJ 4-U) n3 - 4- q m 4- r6 Q L/) L/) =3 U) _0 4_ 4- L/) C c .- �: D- (a) (a) (1) (U m 0- Ln +-, -0 O -)-o .7 ) of -0 Q) Ln o (U - Q) Ln 4- u c (U L7) o Z, Q) -C: l4a- Q) 4--; n3 Q +- u 0) Q) M 0 0 14- U Q) 4-- Q) (u 0 - o- 4 m Q) u •Ln Q) u -.�z - 4-- 0 n L, 0) Q) -0 4-- r)) D 4- Q) = o (10 = M M (- == 4- LI) Ln Ln 4- " C 0 E, M 0) E 0 C)) _= L/.) —0 4- Q) 0 V) p ry) 0 0 Fn 14-- C I 0 — 0 U Q) o o 0 1 4- (1) E V) > 4-- 7D < 4- 0- 0 4- = 0 4- 4-1 +- 0 O+ 4-- Q) V) 10 .S� U u m on 0 D- E 0 OU Q) (u V) . 0 O >, 0 0 Q) 0 4-1 0-ra . =4- 4 *-U m = 4- 0 'o 0 '1:5 4 -7z Q) 0 () - _fp = u = -0 0 4- u4 4- 0 v CD- Q) 0 Ln QL Q) 4- 4-ra(u Q) N E u 0 (u E 0 CD- u W Ln u u > 0 Q) C- aJ 0 Q) n x M - 0-) Fu . 0 Q) Q) M 4-- (- U w0 I) V) Q) 0 - - W 7D o (U Ln C L 4- 4-- Ln 0 CU C 4 >, Ln 4-f U 0 4 = E o DL— Q) 14- CY) -0 L/) M = 4- 4- 40- 4- V,) (1) M QJ 4- 0- 0) -0 -0 -0 M4- u u Ln u U C Q) 0 O 4- -0 -0 0- 0 4-1 E c = 0 — Ln U (D Q) - a) L/) o Ln VI = Q) u 4-- 0 U U ±1- Q (D -0 = c Tj- -0 Q) Q) Ln m (1) _0 7) Q) 0- 0 u �Z Ln [-- C', . C- 0- = Q� -7) P 0- C) N 4- V Q) 0 0 U) 0 d) > E LD .- Q) 0 '4- U Q)E 0 E 4- Ln u 4- cn 0 4- .0 c o L/) --o V) Q) Q) U M Q) Q) 4- M c- Q) n x W (75 Ln V) Q. 0 0 LU W 4- 2 Q) > -0 Q) _0 Q)7 Q) (D • E 6 4- 0 o 0 V) 0 0 o -=m 4-1 0 U =1 C) 4-1 4-Qa 0 Ln 04- ON 0) V) 2 4- 14- - �n 0 Ln E (D Q)0 E 0 o V) u Q) Ln V) o 0 Ln Lli 0 V) Q) 0 o 2! Ln Q) 4- cu Q) Q) 4- Q) Q>J 4 - CD co V) Q) 7D m 4 - U V) -= 0 = < LLJ V) - 4- q m 4- cl) L/) =3 U) _0 4_ 4- L/) 0 79 -C 7C) (a) (a) (1) V) 0) ro 4- 0)-o (a) C: 4--; 4- 0) 4- M 0 420 4- V) •Ln 4- Q) 4- 7D Q 4- (o Q) = 0 Ln v) Q) c -0 V) -0 LLJ Q) E 4- Ln 4- " C 0 E, M 0) E 0 Q) > Q, Q) 0 V) p ry) 0 00 E o E o - C I n — 0 U Q) o o 1 V) > 7D < 4-1 0 — V) V) 4- 0 0 -0 00 u m on 0 D- E 0 0-2 LL O — o 2 0 0) 4- =4- Q) 0 �2 0 (1) 4- 0 C) N c Lle) == (a)— Ul) uj = 4- +- � v LU —_ 4 v� a•'' Lle)J Q 4- qJ C a..+ U) J (n 4- L Ul) 4N 4-O �i (10O 0 — o �o — m LA o U c O N U o sO a m Y o v O N Y (a)v +-, V) �n d ' i - — o I 4, 0 in ' t � 4� v Q) 4_ w O Z Ln w w v 4 Z3 N 4 M Z3 N cn Ln CD 0 ca ON U 0 m 0 O O_? O a tD �--i CD Lh 4-Q1 Q a u i -t* I� N O N u i P -i Z -- oz Ln a 7 4- 0v U Q) > O "o 'v O B U Q N v W ❑ O O O J J O O M v O QJ "' - M _ W } 4- > U � O c O 4- Q) O W❑_ Q Ln - OL -0 O co ❑ V' QQ1 � N QJ O e•i QJ 4L n -0 O > �' (-A >- ° �' v - Ln s 0 v W a O CO V 0 w OU E n C C O_ � Q= -O V) c U =l L U) QJ 4t Q� E U O `> U-) Q) U S2 a > - O O Z7 4 4- QJ 6 O U O U v +- O U Q) V)Q Q) •� OC {C a S v -� o M 'U a O .4 - - 4- = N co co 4- v QJ Ln N J a ra o o Q Lu Q= Q) 0 Q) n > U Q QJ a-- d pl i n - a--' 77 N In I -n co = O 0 m� d O m v v n i 4— cn e -I > Q Q= � VU) m Q� O � N v J l Q L/) nLn ul 0 C Zj Q) 0 O 4 i QJ U l 01 Q) U O 0—= I- N E U U -Cm�� n �� Q14- n, > ra O ° v O Z3 S -0 -v = >Ln 0 v JQ O v w U E 0> �.- -5s __ QJ Q21, Q NJ U Q) QJ 'vi to a-+ W m} Co m 0- Q) 7) Ln Q con W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c � u c 0 4- 0--o v_ > o E ca v � � (-+ E Q�J O v .o > " Q Q a� c O v O o � o � Q) �Na a �Q O Q O QJ ~ v C QJ O 0 QJ Q s 6 N U i QJ 0 E � � N N � � N U � N U O O o E v Ln E U O 1 -0 O '� O � � v v � N Q) U E - O 4D O 1 N Lle) Ul) uj vv C LU a-+ N C J a•'' Lle)J J 4- qJ C a..+ U) J (n 4- L Ul) 4N Q7 L- o �o L- a� m a p o �o c a� O o sO a m Y o v a m Y ° v d ' i I 4, ' - CL 1 ' t � 1 � Z w a) Z Ln w w Z3 N V) Z3 N cn Ln CD 0 Ln lD ON Ln M 0 m Ln Q0 0 m -y O a tD �--i CD Lh oO N Q' a u i -t* I� N O N u i P -i Z -- oz o O Q a 4S W ❑ O O J J O O _ W } O O W❑_ Q N N W. N co ❑ V' � � N � N e•i W uu u C� c W (-A >- ` Ln s W a CL CO V A cun C C E E E a a"i v OC OC XI XI O = N J = N J 0 0 0 d 0c d 00 o N M u1 N d• 0 d N c -I e -I P -I � m L 4 i ate1tjo L 4-+ i I- 2 J N Q) > E E Ln E u) m— E E u u 4- Q) _0 0 Ln 1-n 4:5 m m rn L( o Ln 4- (L) L -Li m E 0 14- 4 4- QJ Q37 E (U Q) Q) = 4-- Q) 0 Q) (u E E Q) Q) U V) Ln Ln Q) 0 Q) >, Ln Q) Q) QJ L/) E 0' Ln 0') C,- 0 4- Ln cN 0 V) Q)4-- cy-) E M r- x 0 Ln U LU E o 0 Q) c M o- 0 M 0 4 V) Ln c 7D (1) rn 4- -o L.LJ co m - - M m 0 Ln 3: Q) QJ U 0 4-- Q) 4 ro 70 >1 Q) — m U V) V) 4-- -j 0 4L (L) 0 (1) U 0 12 L/) (1) 0 4- 4- r'5 W Q) >, cc u >1 CU L/) u C) 'u 4t Q) 4- Ln (a) Q) Lf) L/) 4- (1) m (a (10 o (-n Ln Q) 0 > "n 0 0 C = , - Q) oo 4- m 0 N 4- V) m 0 o M 4- 4- M 0- (1) V) 4- 0 4- u u 0- III C77 aj Q) I �)- F M Q) u Q) Q) 0) E Q) c) > CU E E E C� , +- 70- 3: 0 CD �n U) 4- a) 0 Q) m Q)- M q) 0 U 0 0 0 0 = = . -e O 3: 3: 4- 'zzl- -r,� 0 4-- �-n Q) (-n u) Ln Ln +- U Ln cn I 7-7 11 uj f tA pg LU LU LU V) m ............ CD Ln 2 Cl. -0 0 ---------------- --- LU > uj 0 1= N41 cc 40 tA C 0 N LM 0 Ln Ln cn I (1) \- 0 +— L/) >, _0 CC) -F, u c W w m (D = 0 -= U LA L/) 5, (1) 0 4- Q) > 0 4-- 0 V) 0 ;- L) E 0 E E a) 0 o U 9)V) 0) TJ 4- 4 0 - 4- 0 0 4- 0 v u -,o- (1) 4- m 0 > 0 > 0 qJ 4- 4o- 4— 0 un m E .— C- W E 0 X m 4- Ln 0 Q) > — 0o 4- E 4-- D C) ca U 0 U 4- Q) 4- E 4- V) Q) Ln 10- Q) W Q) E o 4- Ln 4- Q) u U Ln u 0 o --o m L—I) — 4- o =4- Ln Q) C)- m 4- M (a) Q) = T5 (i) --c = > LI) >1 = > = 4- 0 4- 4- m o - 4- 0 C)) Ln Q) 0 4- M U 4- (,n o :D -0 E Ln 0 0 aJ Q) >,.— E 4- L/) 0 76 4c (u ra = c - 4- ` E E V) Q 0- Q) _0 0 E (D Q) o = c 6) 0 u 0 (U un = F 0 4- 0 0 U Q) > Ln 0 0 Ln 4- 4- 0 0al 4- v 0 c 0- Ul q) E E 0 -Q) (a) (- C QJ 0- -9 0- o 0) 4 4-1 0 CS7 cy) U-) o 4- 0 0 u > Q) -T) > 4- .- Q) 4- aJ Ln 0 Ln 0 4-1 4- Q) 0 V) 0 E E o 0 0L I- CDL (a) m .0 4m" 0 _Tj E M CD- \- 0 Ln 0-)4- M un — Co > Q) 0 4 >, 4- -0 o (1) E < o ,12 CD 1 4- 4- n L/ (a) Q) > 0 V) C) 0 < Ln Q) 4- 0 0 0 0 > U Q) E 0 0 Ln >, 4-- _0 (D u 4- u 0 7) (D 0 = 2 Ln M (U (�n cn V) V) .- 04- Ln -0 -0 Ln 'E 0 0) 0 U E Ln Q) 4- �6 (D ra — 4 = c .9 > 0 - o -;-- -,- , Q) �d u w u m 0 Q) 0 U o CD- +- W 0 0 U -0 14- Q) Q) 4- - D-, 0 Q) 4- L/) +- 0 -.0 0 E v co V) -I- (10 0) 4- .0 0) m '4 Q) u u 0 Q) uj '- 0 '�- u 0 E > W 0 U x 0 E CD- 0 +- 0 0 0 LQn) S 40— E 0 0 Q) _0 (1) E L/) 4- Q) (1) - , 4- 0 4- 0 Ln 4- 0 4- u 0-9-9 -0 �D Q) 4- > 4- 0 0 (1) o > 0 Q) W " 4- > n (i) C- 0 V)aJ U 4 0 Q) n C) 4- 4- 0 '4- 0 0 0- 0 +- o 4- 0 Q) 0 4- > 0 4- 0 co 4� � m n (1) L QJ Q) 4- 4 ra 0 0 0 MU (1) 0 4C) m — 4— 0 aJ 4— Q) o > 4— 0 = 0 4— Q) u o 4— U Ln 4— Ln Q) 0 4— 0) Ln 4-- 4-- 4-- C CU 0 m u 0 cu 0 =3 E u 4- u C V) 0 Q) b).9 0 Co U > 4— 0 -C 4— 4— u Ln nm 0 E U) 0 0 4- 0 -�5 c > Q) > 0 Q) 0 4-1 -T) = 4-- 2 > , Q) o < 4— -0 E 0 CN 't co I — Q) 0 4-- 4- V) 1— (a) (1)= - 0 = C (3) C-- o= = (:) 4- 4- m 4-1 14- - 0 0 C- n u 'o 4-Q) .2, u 4- 0 4- 4- 4- V)- 2 m 0- 0 4- 0 E 4- — (o _0 LLJ E 0 0 = V) 2) 4c)' m =5 Q) 4- V) 4-- E 4 DLn Q) DL _0 Q)u O 4-- 42) 4- 0 F U C 0 V) E Q) (au 0 u Q) V) 14- m 4- Ln Q) 0 > 0 > m 0 M C- 4- 0 n N 0 4- E 0- 4 - ra L 0- V) 2!- 4--; -"T ) 0 0 N 'E -Li 4- > a) 0 O 4-> Q) 4- 0 W > W Q) >C� W ID ra _0 0 0 0 0 4- E Ln EE� o LD _0 _0 4- 0 -F L, =) 7U L, (-n v. un u N ,2 a 0 \11 Q) U X (1) \, 0 u 1� _ E Q) (D Ln (1) �n 0 C E (a) >, m .0 • 4 -0 Qc) V) 0 a V) u c (D E > (D -0 0 Ln 0 Q) u U 4- Q) t 4-- V) Q) 0 4-- 76 4- cu -0 4-- m V) . -0 0- L -n u E 4- 0 m Q) 0 0 '4- 0 4,� E 0 14- m -0 0 = 0 70 0) V) Q)4 - u 4- 4- c- m 4- -0 G 4- 12, 0 Q) u "- Q) u 0 -0 n 0 o Ln ID Cu - -0 m 0 u (D C: Ln Q) 4 4- 4- L/) Q) 0 4- -0 0 L/) Lnz0 0 Ln Q) cr: U 0) Q) 4- c_- E (a) E (a) 4(� Q) L/) 4- 0- -0 4- x — > Q) 4- 0-)0 - 0- = Co 0 4- Q) 42 �: (D 0 75 > C) 0 V) — Q) > (D 0 > (Z > U E u 0 Q) �� V) C co V) (1) 0 Q) x Q) -0 4 V) (1) RMWIM 75 4- (1) 4- m (a) x (a) 4- . 4- V) _0 4- -0 n 76 -Fu 4- M 4- CD O = m — U U-) (1) o E (1) E u (1) Q) 4f �: 4- 0 o•0 0 LU 4-- ;-- m E O m E — E n 2 0 Q) (D Q) 4- C) O 0- 0 _0 V) > > Q) U 07 m a) -C Q) 0 —> 76 0) C = Af- a) Q) 0 V) 0) 4 >, V) 0 0 4- C r- 4- C (D 4- U Q) 7D V) 4- . v° M \' c m _0 -0 0- 0 LI) - o 0 0 u 4- -0 4- U m u 4-E o U M 4- U V) 0- u m 4- V) 0 Q) Lb 14- 0 Q) Ln 0 0 0- E 15, =- :�� V) 4-- CD.- 0 = 0 — E C)_ (D 0_ 41 V) > L/) U=lun 4-1 u un -0 0u 0- CN �5 a) E = �6 0 u 0 u _i= 0 _ �n � I u 0) v� E I Q) 0 (1) (D Q) Q) - - 10 0 14-(1) 0 E 0 Ca 4- V) cu 0 0 C 0- V) - -0 4� C: 0 0 0 (a) E 0 (3) 4- M 4- =3 u Q- Ln E° 0 4 4- u 0 o U + 00 Q- 0 Q) -0 u 0 0 c- 0- aJ 4- U3 _0 4-1 0 C� cs 0 0 u Q) 4- 0- > 4- =4- -j V) -0 Q) I > F a) u > 0 - E E C) Ln Q) 0 4- 0 o 0 -Z 4- 0 4- C) (a) 0 0 Z) 4� C) > 0 Q- 4- > -C 4- -0 1 -is a) -U > u 4 c C4) C) 0 Q) Ln SJ Q) 4- 0 0 4 4- r'Y- -�D -0 E15� w m -0 -7) -0 -0 Ln Q) 0 u E o V) -0 (-U (a) (1) -0 4- m = u (U 0 0 0) 0 4-- 0- o U 14- 0 Q) 0 E Q) c n 4- 4 1 E -0 14- (1) 0 -0 0 -- -0 4-- 0 — 0�UQ Q) 0 Qj :5 14-- 0 u 0) 0 (D - -0 - > 0- 0 3: E 0 E C) Ul LD --o 4- " q - �n CT Cu u 0 4- c --o C) -d3 (�3 = z z 4- 0) = -.o u > DL 4-- 4- I- (a) > o o (10 (1) 0) = o .= 0 0 0 0 4- C) _0 00 7D 0 _0 (a) u (o (1) Qj V) . (a) -.2 4- (a) = Ln -.0 . Lu u U �) /) –C -0 , :6� E 3: C Q) �-, 0 4 - > > E 0 c Q) Q) 0 u ;7� 4- 0 0 4- C- Qj E u Ln V) 4- (U = u = Q) 0 0 4- 4- 4- ca 4- M 75 m CL Q) Q) =- 0 u u4- Q m 0 4- E C) o --o m 4Q-) - -- 0 4-- 0) 0 tf (- Q3 4- ry-d V) 76Q) ;-- u (- Q- U (Z = to Q) /) n 0 Q) C)> u 0 V) 0 C)) Z o- 4- 0 _0 Q) (3) (3) V) -0 .7 Q� 0) § m Qj 0 co -C (1) =) = Q) 0 CD) C: (a) U CS (1) -0 N < Ln .- Cr Q) 4-C: (Z 0 V) _0 () (]) 4- 4- 0- Q) m = 4- 0 N E x u 4-- QJ M Ln C)- E > v 0 0 4-- QL) Z 4- Q) Cu 0 4 0 m 4-1 0 E m V) 0 4-1 Q) 0 — CD - --(::3 D 0 0 u 0- �n Q) 4- > 0 Q) > Q) o Q Q) M 4- -0 > = U U -0 co > o 4-1 -,;� > Q) =m 66 .-L o V) CT Q) o m Qj LA Ln Q) _0 Q) 41:3 V) 0-) 4 -is u 4-1 -u E m C Cu �5 (-- 0 0 u 0) -173 0 Q) E 0 -0 -) 11 IC 4 M 0 1- , Z� Q) 0') 2 z QL C z 4- -0 --- D Q) D 0 4-1QJ c 4- V) U 4 - (U V) t:f 0 Q) 0 41 - M U 0) 0 t7 0 C) LI) _0 0 u C) E () Q) (10QV) 0 0- 0 U ops m F Q) 4-- V) (Z U U 0 14- 0 0 17 -0 0 Q Ln V) — 4- = �n Q) 4- (T Q) 4- 0 ca V i = X o C)- 4 0 13 0 0) Cv 0 M =4- ::3) cr- .Q C) (a) o c = -0 U 0 u 2 Q CU E 0 CU U >, E Q) Q) > CU QL)n n 0 = — 0 0 Q) 4- -0 14- o Ln 0 E QL) 4- co Q) 4-- Q) 4- C3 Zs v E -(u E QJ E 4-- > Ln 0 V) 14- 4-- 0 C- L, F- 12 ru L/) n (u =5 u u u X W 0 rr 4- u 'm 0 :3 ~ 4- -0 Q) E (U 0-) 0 0 12 0 u 1- NN Qj 2 Qj c- :3 uj 0 V) Q) E 0) 4- L2 n u 14- n Lij 4- M u 4t U-) Ln 4- Q) 4 -- Ln E U) 4 - Ln 4Z 7D 4t n N 4- o 4m- �7 m 0 u n n 0 V) 4 C) [2 Q) (- = m 4- 0 QJ 4- E QJ 0 L/) E "0- co o2 >m LIN WM IS ra 0 O IN Is 1-1 4 -- co 4- m 4- 4- 4- Q) 4- C)) = EQ) u 0- 0 0 > Q) N 4- v) N Q) 0Ln 0 .4-- --o 4- 4--- un ca Ln Q) M LLJ 0 '0o QJ 4- 0 -�7 4- ra 0 E Z--= LD) u 0 Ln 4- 4- 0 4- 4 CO m co u (1) 4- (a) U- m Q) Q) V) o o 4- U U Q) N o Ln Q) 2 4- 4- Q) > = m Q) v4- E Q) _E E Ln .- E 0- 0 M �n 0 (a) 4-- LI) Ol Q) QJ > 0 Q) o 4- (a) V) 4 - Ln U 4- 0 4- CD - 0 0) 4-1 L, E 0 4- Q_ = L) o E E 0 0 QJ > -Tj W W 0 > Q) O4- cn 0 ro QJ 4:� 4 - = C M CT Q) E E aj 4-- E E 75 CD- -0 17) 0 _0 ru — > Q1 0 Q) oC -D- ( (LD/) U Q) Q) Q) > 00 4-1 Q) 0 Q) o Q) 0 < > -- , =1 u c o =- n C 0 u co = Q)(a) 0-) Ln =E 'v =) CD.- Z Ln 0 4- 4- 4- Q) Lij E 0 4- Q) 0 0- 0 0 4- Q) > 4-- Q) r- 0 L/') Ul L') Q, cu o cu L/) 4- — 0 = 4- o C, o4- Ln Ca 0 § 4- -0 4- 4- 4- 00 = 4- 4- 4- 4- m U V) 4t X V) 0 Q) 4-1 -0 Q) on z:: C 4-- E N >, C) (D --o - 0 4-- Q) -C o Q) V) Ln 4- n 0 4- p7 o D- . x O 0> v) > Ln Lm LJ 0 Qo 4-- 4- 4- Q) >1 4-1 Q) 4-1 4- 4- 0 o Q) > Q) Q) O QJ Q) 0 Q) 4 - LN 0- E 0 -a �E Q) 0 Q) "n , W u M 4-- = C 4- U-) --oQJ < 4- Q) 0 n E —0 0--.0 (D Q) 0 .- c Q) t:f Q) > > Q) (D ,- Q) 5) 4.1 Q) o)-oa) -a C QJ -70 -0 ov Q) o (D Ln > o Q) 0 Q) Q) o Q) (1) Ln 4.- 0 Lr) 't co -= >, I .0 -E Icu - 0 C - cu 0 4- 4- 4-- cz CO Q X 0 — c EE 4-- C_- 4- 0 > U 4- 4QJ - m Ln Q) x n Ln Q) 0 Q) = n 4QJ - A-- 4-- 0 Q) u Q) = (U 4- -= 4-- E 4- 4-- U 0 0 0 o u E 0 0 0 4-- o > s =c, S), 4- 4- 4 -- Ln E 4- u 4-- m Ln 14- 0 n F- =3 C) Ln v4" < QJ QJ j 7-0 Q) U Q)Ij 0 o ru 'cu co , , = 0 Ln 4- Q) < oLn Lnv 0 LLJ 4-- Ln m E o .- 4- x 0 (1) 2 u 4- Q) 0- = 2 4= 3: 0 ul Ln 0_0 4- 4- Cl) m \,o u n o X Q) ELn 4_ -U 0 U 0 4-1 Q) 0 4- 4-1 -0 0 0 0 73 Ln +- +- U (D = =4- E o 0 Ln 0- 0 0 14- 0 �E 4E 4- - 0 4- 4- 4- Ln 4- E 0 4M- rU 4-- u E > c m 2 0 VI I L/)V) m 4- — Cl) -0 _0 Q) (a) _0 (D) (a) 4- u Q)u _0 LD > 0 4- Q) u N o o 0 0 O a) 4t O n Ln :L,- Q) Q) 0 m u- Ln Ln m = Q) o �5 C O 4 - Ln Ln Q ru 4-- m LLJ C- Q) 0-) 0 aJ m V) Q) _0 u 0 4- cu O Q) L) 0 .= Ln Q) 0 u > P U U E 0 -C Q) � as 0) Q) -Q 4- Q) 4- 0 4- -0 = L V) (T M 4- Ln 0 Q) 0 Q) 4- —0 L/) Q) N c) u Z wLn 0 (D (D 75 = > O 14- 0 Q) u E o 0 Q) 0 2 Ln M u L/ Q) C- 4- (U " a) = 0 (L) 4- 4-- 0 (D U-) U U Ln 4-- :3 C U CD -)V) V) 0 x :Z o = Q) Q) 0 -0 - U '4- 0 Q) -4F > Q) E Q) Q ) 0 E c - E Q) L/) c c n o U (a) 4-- (L) 0 (-) (D) 0 4-- Ln Q) 14- m n Q) Ln E(D 0 4- 0 4-- Ln 0 ._ Q) 4-- M C- V) V) N Q) > 1- - 0 M LIJ 4-- M O aj o c- u cn V) < E Ln m Q) 4Q) 0 0 E E 0 Q) Q) 0 Q) +- C- 0 4- u +. -I Ln 4-- 4-- aJ 0 Q) Q) Q) L/) vLn 0 't -n Ln = 4- � Q) U u .— 4 -- un ro 4- 0) >� 14- 0 Ln 0 V) Ln M 4- E L -Li aj 0 0 E -7) 0 Q—) > 4- 0 Q) u 4-- LnQ) (D Q) Q) Q) E Ln Q) L, u Ln = — > = 4- 0 0 - u 0 Q 0 Old C) 4- U 'F L/) (a) = " Q) > "0 < (a) > Q) = 4- 4- (L) Ln Q m 4-- u CY) 0 4- V) LLJ 4- = - 14- 'a) (a ) (a) 4- 0 (T Q) U 0 C) 4- 0 UQ) 0 0 0 14- u < 4- = Q) aJ QJ i 4- 4- Q) 0 =3 B p = '4- 0 0-0 u 0 4- -0 u u u 0-) W 4- 0 E (LD/) Q) V) Q) 0 Ln E -Q) E 0 E 0 Q) < ED- u 3: E _0 LD E u Q) u E 0 0 O a) 0 0 4-- 0 E V) Q) O +- O 0 4-- 0 Q) v 4 aJ m V) Q) _0 0 4- cu D L) 0 .= Q) 0 u > P =4 E 0 -C � Q) 4- Q) 0 4- -0 = L V) (T M 0-) 0 Q) —0 E Q) N c) u -c C- E4- 0 > 14- 0 Q) ru (13 0 L, C)- E cr:4- Cc 4-- = 0 0 0 (L) 2! (D 0 CD -)V) V) 0 (13 > 4- u Q) — Q) Q ) Q) (10 0- c 4- - Q) (a) 4-- (L) 0 (-) (D) 0 4-- 0 Q) Q) Ln E(D V) V) N Q) > Q) Q) cn V) < Q) 0 E E Q) Q) 0 4- 0 E 0 0 Q) 0 0 o) E ro 4- 0) Ln 0 V O v �n -0 _0 3: di Q) 0 0 0 E N < un n 0 Q) 4-1 Lu Q) > Q) Q) 4- C- 0 U 0 0 T2s 14- 0 0 0 C- 0 CU X 4- 0 0 0 0 Q) Q) Q) C- C- 4- 4- 04- Ln u 0 cad/ V) g Q) Q) n .E Q) n n 0 4- 14- 0 4- 0 0 .00 0 U V) 0 4- > 0 N N Q) Q) 4- 0 Q) V) Q) Q) W 4- 4- 4- n Q) C_- CO 0 0 U -0 U 0 0 CT C 12 0 CD.- , 4-- 0 00 't co Q) Q) Q) 0 4-- _0 -0 _= 4- -C 4- 0 (1) Q) o'er> E F= 4- 0 E 4- OL 0 OL 4-- 0- 0 ra -0 0 0 'E 2! E 0 — 0- (a) 0 0 Q) =3 4- Fj - 0- 0- -0 co =3m E u Ln 0 E 4- Q) 7C) Q) 4- Q) > 0 0 140- 4 -4- L/)4 - u V) =5 �n — U — — m 0� E 0 m Q) m M ucL 40- -;_- �n u Z7 r6 -1 0 �n U V) V) 0 0 V) .0) 0_ 0 4— x 4- 4- 4- m E 2 X -0 (1) 0 Q) CU Q) 0 n o) C) �n �u -0 Q) V) Q) = a) 0 0- Ln Q) -0 (b E Xv E Q) U M m > U " Q) 0 < Q) =3 c (1) � 4- 4- Q) Ln E c 7:) 2. 14- E U 0 v Q) 4- 0 X 0 = Q) 4- Mamm 4 x ffamm 4- 0 0 Q) > 4- 0 Q) 0 Lns Q) 4- Q m N Q) E o m Q) un Ln Q)o 4- 0 -0 Q) I > W Q) Ln 0 C: M Q) 0 - C M D 4- x) c- 3: u 9V) c- +- 0 0 Q) Q) 4-- 0 4- --C) - — 4- 4- 4- Q) C, 0 L/) Q) 0 U 4 -- Ln Ln E 0 'x u Ln 0 C7) Q) U 4- ma 10 4-1 Q) C .5 -0 0) co _0 Q) un Q)ra 4-1 V) W x E p LL 0 Q) u =3 Q) Ln E un 0 Ln = 0 Q) V) V) M M Ln CU 4-1 -0 0 Q) x Q) U cu — m -d 4- 4- m Q) 0 E E CD -Ln 0 0 0- E N> co ca V) co 4-- 4j E W -0 -0 4t E E 0 0 4- V) 0 _0 co -0 -0 V) F— Ln Q) 4-1 0 LA 0- 0� pl 0- 0 E u) 4 4- W 0 U CD.- 0 uj -.0 u Ln _0 Q) — . Q� C) Q) Q) Q) un 0 = cy -0= —Q)m —Eu = � < 'M L� -:� -0 E ; = -o 0 CD.- .— m i—V) 0- < -0 -0 IN u Ln 4- Q) E E L/) 0 Q) Q) ti0 >1 4- 4- Q) V) u c 4- Q) 4- 4- u 4- 0 4t L, 4- L/) ra 4 - co u 7D Cu 4- ru LIJ 4- (a) 2 4 - Ln 5 Q) V) 4- 0 0 LO co 4-1 L) E E -= 0_ 0 = 0 > = u 0 C) 0 wm�� 0 (a) 0u Y) 0 C) QJ E U) .7 (a) 4- =0- 4.- u 0 -5 V) V) 0 (a) 0 CY) :t2 O co 0 0 4- u x "-4' 0 Q) 4- 0 V) u 0 4- 4- V) V) L.0 0 E E 4-1 Ln Q) O 0 U > Ln Ln 0 Ln - E71 Q) 4 0 _0 - Ln C C- 0 0n u 0) 0 -0 u 0 �4- L/) 0 Cm Ln E 0 0 4-- G) 4- V) _0 0 +- uu Ln 4 - 0- CDL x 4- V- u Q) ro = 0 (1) -.0, 4- 0 4- 4- Ln (1) -0 = = 0 U 0 0 o L/) 4- z LI) 4 -0 V) > (a) o 0 V) (1) 0*2% +- _Q 4- = u u u c �n (a) 0 4- 0 .0-) U.) - (a) Q)(1) — 0') n V) 4- c Q) LQ/)) (D) c 0 4- D 4- 4- C > C: Z) Q) Z_- u u C) 0 0 vz 4- Q) Q) 4- (a) > 0 u (a) Q - (a) 0 (a) Q) N Ln 0 4- 0 0> CD.- X 0 0 u 0- rn =4- 0 CD.- a 0 IN u Ln 4- Q) E E L/) 0 Q) Q) ti0 >1 4- 4- Q) V) u c 4- Q) 4- 4- u 4- 0 4t L, 4- L/) ra 4 - co u 7D Cu 4- ru LIJ 4- (a) 2 4 - Ln 5 Q) V) 4- 0 0 LO co a.+ N T- 04 N 2 U Q qj x O z Or LLI a z Q. a y PID LL x 0 x O z D a w z a a U) x W U H N J O U) � o 7 N x 0 Cl LLI -J Jug LL I. x 0 Cl LLI -J Jug LL r N w MW W W U W 0 3:l,� dl„„4•.�r�dr� , W 3:l,� Ol W U H W J N W Z. Ol NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 1001 King Street East Concept Drawing Have Your Voice Heard! Date: April 24, 2023 Location: Council Chamlbers,� (Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West. orVii uall Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, meeting details, start time of this item or to appear as a delegation, visit: kitchener.ca/meetings To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: wwwAitchenenca/ Plan n i ngAppl ications or contact: L.1se � .�0 Storeys i �.. � �. rSpace Katie Anderl, Senior Planner III.... ev6[o u-na t alJi w o"f 8.01 519.741.2200 x 7987 katie.anderl@ kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener will consider applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the property at 1001 King Street East to permit a mixed-use development including 464 residential units, 7 live/work units, 450 m2 of commercial space, and a parking rate of 0.64 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The development proposes an `L' shaped building with a 30 -storey and a 11 -storey tower and a parking structure with a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.01. Page 356 of 601 From: Mike Seiling Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 9:02 AM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: RE -CIRCULATION - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Building; no concerns From: Katie Anderl <IKatt_e_: Inderll. Ikiitclheinelr._ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 9:59 AM To: Carlos Reyes < rIo ....Reyes_ .Idtdheiner,ca>; Dave Seller <Dare:S IIII r_ kii.tche n ir.ca.>; David Paetz < yid.i� e.tz. lkiitclherrer_c >; Ellen Straus <I:Illen Str us. _!ki clh_erner.c >; Enova Power Corp. -Greig .......... .......... Cameron <greiicitterpm(eargrircpim>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <slhauin.wan_ein�rinr.cpi >; Greg Reitzel <reg.Iftentxell.I<itchenr.c>; Mike Seiling ................................................. ....... <MVke.,SeillVng. ..!kit Ihener.ca>; Park Planning (SM) <Il1airlk.Pllanning_... I<otclner�er.c >; Region -Planning <II"V. nnin..p.pllnc.tnrns..(reglrinc�terllpr�c>; Steven Ryder <Steven..:_Ryr'_I<lhenr::c>; Sylvie ......................... Eastman <SyIvue._E st a_n.(@_O<itcUnertiero >; WRDSB - Board Secretary (d.q_in.e burns ? r s_::c ) <eVaone burnsnrrdsb c>; WRDSB -Planning <p_9.9.r�.g._rds_.._c.> ............................................... Cc: Lenore Ross<Il::e_nere.Rass.."_ici.tcU7eror.c>; Angela Mick t.gh Deeksha Choudhry <I[) elks_ha.._Chpudhry@hitchener.ca>; Pegah Fahimian <Pegah.FaNm.1 'ft tchener.ca>; 'Jason Wigglesworth' <"w'V Vesvv rt�. E g'oonofwateUVoo.ca>; M M o h r <MM_cuhr. .reguonofwaterlooaca>; Sandro Bassanese <Sandiro.Bassa_nese. Il itclh_em_er::ca>; Gaurang Khandelwal <Gauirang._Klha.indellwa.11 ..l iitche_neir.ca> ..................................... Subject: RE -CIRCULATION - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hello, The City of Kitchener has received an updated submission from King -Charles Properties (Kitchener) Limited for the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. Please see attached circulation letter. Updated documentation is saved in AMANDA (folders 22-100385 & 22-100386) for internal staff reference & for external agencies Slha.ire[jlle. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Katie Anderl Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7987 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.anderlC@kitchener.ca ���nmoro h eft Y w �o IITy�i�v �lll,.' Page 357 of 601 From: Trevor Jacobs Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:41 AM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi Katie, The following is Engineering comments. They will need to update and re -submit their water distribution report to reflect the comments below from Angela Mick, Kitchener Utilities: "There is an existing 150mm water service already servicing the site from Charles St E (installed as part of LRT) so I'm not sure why they would suggest a new 150mm service from King St E. All of the other existing unused services along Charles will need to be cut off at the main with coordination from LRT. King St from Ottawa St to Stirling Ave is being reconstructed in 2023 so it would make sense to leave the King St servicing for the reconstruction project to remove. " Regards, Trevor From: Katie Anderl <IKatt_e_: Indeirll.. '.I itclheiner._ca> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:03 PM To: Trevor Jacobs <.F.ireY2.raIa_2o s_ Ilsit.clheir�_e_r, a.> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi Trevor, All the reports submitted for this OPA/ZBA are saved here: O:\Secured\Digital Planning Review\Development Application Submissions\1001-1051 King St E & 530-564 Charles St. I attached the Servicing Study thye submitted, however if it doesn't include the details you need, they will need to update the report to provide what you need. Thanks for the quick review, Katie From: Trevor Jacobs <'Firevor a_cobs. _kiitche �_e.ir ca.> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:56 AM To: Katie Anderl <IKatii_e_: Indeirll.. .l itclh In Ir.._ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Thanks, Katie. I have not received the required documents for the review, or do I just ask for these again? Page 358 of 601 Since the pre -app, our comments on these applications has changed slightly as it relates to increased FSR's: Zoning Bylaw Amendment: • For the OPA/ZBA a Functional Servicing Report showing outlets to the municipal servicing system along with the storm and sanitary design sheets are required to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. The sanitary zoned and actual peak flow must also be submitted to run the sanitary capacity modeling. The City of Kitchener will use this information to determine if there are any downstream issues. If the capacity analysis determines that the pipes will need to be upgraded to support the development, then these upgrades will be rolled into the development costs. Further studies will be required at the time of development to determine the approximate amount of sanitary sewers that will need to be upgraded to accommodate the above developments. • FOR SITES LOOKING FOR A SPECIAL REGULATION TO THE EXISTING ZONING THAT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE FLOOR SPACE RATIO (POPULATION) i.e. NOT CHANGING THE ZONING (if applicable) - Please note that since zoned flows for this development are not reflective of the development application, population should be based off of the Regions 2020 Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report. Section 2.4 — Development Data establishes a People Per Unit (PPU) based on Structure Type and assigns Apartments as having a PPU of 1.77. Please multiply 1.77 by the number of units in the building. Furthermore, the City's Average Daily Residential Sanitary Flow rate is 305L/day/cap and the City's Average per second Residential Sanitary Flow rate is 0.0035L/sec/cap. Please be advised that the process Engineering is noting above is specific to this development. • For the OPA/ZBA a Water Distribution Report is required to the satisfaction of Engineering Services in consultation with Kitchener Utilities and the Region of Waterloo. Regards, Trevor From: Katie Anderl <IKatie.Andeirll ll<itclheineir.ca> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 2:27 PM To: Trevor Jacobs <� it v2.r Ia_�2o.ts_��....Ilsltclheaef.„ a.> Cc: Christine Kompter <Ihlrii:s.tii_ne..IIG.c�.irm.iteir llkitclheneir,ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi Trevor, No, no meetings yet - this is an application for OPA/ZBA. The pre -app for this one was held last May. There may be a Neighbourhood Information meeting scheduled in a couple of months, or possibly and post -circulation meeting or issue specific meetings depending on the comments that emerge from the circulation. Thanks, Katie Page 359 of 601 From: Eric Riek Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:29 AM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: RE -CIRCULATION - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Thanks Katie, No engineering concerns. I circulated to KU and they had the following comment: I don't see that there are any changes on the water side so no issues. At the site plan phase they will need to use modelling from Charles St since they are servicing from there. Any questions, please advise. Eric Riek, C.E.T. Project Manager I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener From: Katie Anderl <IKatiie.,, incleirll...Ikiia lh eln e r.c > Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 11:46 AM To: Eric Riek <IE;;.ric.._R.ii lk !ktdhenerxa> Subject: RE: RE -CIRCULATION - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi, I received an updated Site Servicing Feasibility Study as part of the final resubmission — do you wish to review? (I know you said you had no further comments as per your email below...) Thanks, Katie From: Eric Riek <IEric..RueVcOrutchrir.c> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 8:52 AM To: Katie Anderl <Katie..,A der[(J kitch n r._ca> Subject: RE: RE -CIRCULATION - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Good Morning Katie, Engineering and Kitchener Utilities are satisfied with the supporting documents for the OPA/ZBA for these properties. No further concerns, additional comments will be supplied at the site plan stage. Cheers, Eric Riek, C.E.T. Project Manager I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener From: Ellen Straus <EIII_en- tir a s.�.._Kii:tc_henei:...ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:08 PM To: Eric Riek <,IE rir.Rii l I tclhener ca> Page 360 of 601 Date: January 6, 2023 To: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner From: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner cc: Subject: OPA22/001 /K/KA ZAB22/002/K/KA 1001-1051 King Street East & 530-564 Charles Street East Heritage Planning Comments Klr' `o rf,-Ni".R Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the updated Heritage Impact Assessment, updated Urban Design Brief and updated the updated site plan, renderings and elevations submitted in support of Official Plan Application OPA22/001/K/KA and Zoning By-law application ZBA22/001/KA regarding 1001- King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East and provide the following comments. Current Heritage Status of Subject and Adjacent Properties The property municipally addressed as 1027 King Street East is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. Both the original circa 1914 Industrial Vernacular building and the 1946 Art Deco influenced addition are identified as having cultural heritage value. In addition to the Industrial Vernacular and Art Deco architectural styles and their corresponding heritage attributes, the contextual value of the buildings location and design providing a clear view down Onward Avenue to the front fagade of the original circa 1914 building is important. The site has historic and associative value linked to the original owner (Theodore Adam Witzel of the Onward Manufacturing Company Limited), the use of the building (manufacturing of vacuums) and the architect of the 1946 Art Deco addition (William Stuart Jenkins and Sherman W. Wright). The property is also located within the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood significant cultural heritage landscape as per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) which was prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd and approved by Council in 2015. A description of the significant cultural heritage landscape along with its cultural heritage value and character defining features is provided in Appendix 6 of the CHLS. Conclusions and Recommendations of the Scoaed Heritaae Imaact Assessment A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by MHBC Planning Limited, dated November 9, 2021, and most recently revised in November 2022 . The updated development proposal assessed in the November 2022 HIA contemplates the demolition of the existing listed structure and all other structures on the site to build a comprehensive mixed-use development with two towers — Tower A and Tower B. Tower A is proposed to be 13 -storeys with 144 units and Tower B is proposed to be 30 storeys with 238 units. The development proposal also includes 348 parking spaces in the form of structured parking internal to the building. The HIA evaluated the impact of the proposed development on the listed property as well on the Cultural Heritage Landscape and recommends the following mitigation strategies to mitigate impacts: Page 361 of 601 Klr' `6 rf,-Ni".R • Submission of a Documentation report which would include photographic descriptions and photo maps of the property. The HIA concludes that demolishing all structures apart from the Art Deco Tower were considered as neutral impacts as those structures had been altered and did not have significant design/architectural value. However, the HIA also concluded that demolishing the Art Deco would be considered an adverse impact, as there are not many examples of surviving examples of Art Deco -style buildings in the city. Preserving the Art Deco Tower without the two other structures would not be possible due to its structural reliability on the other structures. The listed property also had historical and contextual value, specifically with regards to its placement and the views of Onward Avenue. The HIA is still in the `draft' stage and has not yet been approved by the Director of Planning. Heritage Planninq Staff Comments The findings and recommendations of the HIA were presented and discussed at the January 4, 2022, meeting of Heritage Kitchener. Even though the proposed development is predicated on the demolition of the existing structure, staff are appreciative to see a more comprehensive commemoration effort of the existing structure by the applicant. This includes the installation of the `Eureka' signage infront of the proposed development, and a large "Memorial Wall" at the entrance of the podium which details the history of the site and its evolution over time. The proposed development will also re -use the following salvaged elements of the Art Deco Tower to commemorate the site at the interior of the proposed lobby area: 1. Original Eureka Tiles 2. Window and Door Elements 3. Existing Metal columns. Staff would like further information on specifically what elements will be salvaged and how they will be used in the proposed development. As such, Staff require that in addition to a Documentation Report, that a Salvage and Re -use Plan also be submitted, which can be submitted along with the Documentation Report, that details the salvaging and re -use of these materials. This can be done at the Site Plan Application stage. Staff would also like further clarification on how the proposed `Art Deco' mural commemorated the Art Deco Tower of the existing building. Staff would also like the applicant to explore alternative locations for the garage entrance. Currently, the location of the entrance of the garage is where the existing `Art Deco' tower is, and is meant to be the focal point of the building. The proposed garage entrance, in its current location, might detract from that portion of the proposed development serving as a `terminal view' looking down from Onward Avenue, as well as the proposed commemoration efforts. Page 362 of 601 From: Deeksha Choudhry Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:07 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: Re: RE -CIRCULATION - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi Katie, I am okay with the commemoration efforts proposed at this stage. I am also okay with the latest changes proposed re: garage door relocation, and placing units back on the side fronting King. Rest of the details can be worked out at the site plan stage. Thanks! Kind Regards, Deeksha Choudhry, MSc, BES Heritage Planners Planning Division I City of Kitchener From: Katie Anderl <Kati_e_. !ndeirll.. _Jtclhener._ca> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 12:28 PM To: Deeksha Choudhry <, II<:s.lha..._�Ih_ ud.h.E @1kutclheiner.ca> Subject: RE: RE -CIRCULATION - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi Deeksha, Do you need to issue a final set of comments for this application? I am looking for prepare my report over the next couple of weeks. Does Garett need to approve the HIA? Or does this get done at SP, or through a Holding Provision? Thanks! Page 363 of 601 From: Wang, Shaun <svvan8@kwhydro.ca> Sent: Thursday, March 34'2UZ310:O6AK4 To: KatieAnder| Cc: Cameron, Greig Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Circulation for Comment OPA/ZBA(1O01King Street East) Hi Katie, Sorry | missed this one. Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro has the following comments: The developer shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener Wilmot Hydro Inc. for servicing: l. Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro has existing overhead pole lines onboth King Stside and Charles St side, close 1mthe property line. 2. Any proposed above grade building fagade must have a minimum clearance of 5.S meters from the center mfhydro pole line. 3. Any adjustment toKitchener Wilmot Hydro Inc. existing facilities will beo1the developers cost. 4. To service the site, on-site distribution transformer (either pad -mounted orroom type) may be required, as per Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro standards. The transformer room shall be at grade. Ulm Shaun Wang, P.Eng. System Planning & Projects Enginaer Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. P: 519-745-4771x8312 Page 364 of 601 From: Cameron, Greig <gc ir�er in."..-llc riny iro.ca> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 12:27 PM To: Wang, Shaun <srnrinI<Ihyirac> Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hello Shaun, Page 365 of 601 IF:YIL IFIllease ireslpoind. Greig Cameron (he/hum), IPEng, MSc Vice President, Engineering & IT IPH: 51.9-749-61.82 From: Katie Anderl <IKatt_e_: n.deirll. .II<iitclheiner._ca> Sent: March -23-22 12:25 PM Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Hi, This is a friendly reminder to please provide any comments you may have with respect to the proposed OPA/ZBA for 1001 King St E. Thanks, Katie From: Christine Kompter <CIhiril.stir_m_e_.IKr u�o.PI r(kteri�rc> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 4:05 PM To: DL #DSD—Planning < .:::6 1 in_m_omgl[ ivu spin !ki cV e rer >; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <. rqu .VVicQfr.immr o..n.-: Uc.in s.@ kll.c ene..^.._c..a.>; >; Dave Seller <,C gy .S VII it V<iG:clhener.ca>; David Paetz <y( i"e.tz.lkitelheinr.>; Feds <vl_e..ffes...e.>; GRCA - Planning (1211rumum..g.rmriv.r.,.eJ < D roroim.t . .g.r _m_ rive ca>; Greg Reitzel <dreg.,( ur.z V.0 _kot ma er. >; >; Jim Edmondson <Jim l dmondsoinpkutcUne_ineU >; Justin Readman < uastin it adrrti _m._ uteVneiner >; Katherine Hughes ........ ......... ... .._....c..... <Katherine.ifl�ge:s.._Vcitce.n_erca.>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <mn_rDrinyrp.pon.cq>; Linda ............................................................. Cooper <I.::omc ca 0<otc6 m U >; Mike Selling <,VV�iVc :S ulorbg O itch ner.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Fxec uiivey.p.DawancidevOopment o com>; Park Planning (SM) <,P�_irlk.,�Il�ininii.in,g( kiitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <..P..[.a..iT2.i..n.DrAppllicatiioinsC@reuiionofwaterlloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <Piro.IpD t �0�.irm.ii.in..@�.....Ikua�lha in_e_r:.,��.>; Robert Morgan <,Cr21b.irt.I_piranCkitcheiner.ca>; Steven Ryder<St2vrn.,_Cyder'Ckitcheneir.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <S}lllyii ._Ea_stmaln.. _Ikii:tc.lheiner.._ca>; WCDSB - Planning <Ipll_�.in.in.iiit�.�_ �i_s_I���>; WRDSB - Board Secretary ( Il :i.in_e burnsC�wrdsb.ca) <c �afl.ine burns2wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planr& a wirdslb.ca> Cc: Katie Anderl <IKatie.Anderlll@kiitcherner.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Please see attached. Additional documentation is saved in AMANDA (folders 22-100385 & 22-100386) for internal staff reference & SSharelFiille for external agencies. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Page 366 of 601 April 28, 2022 Erica Bayley, P. Eng. Senior Project Manager Paradigm Transportation Solutions 5A-150 Paradigm Road Cambridge, ON N1 R 81-2 Dear Ms. Bayley: PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4J3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 www. reg ionofwaterloo.ca File No.: C14-60/64 VIVE DEVELOPMENTS Re: OPA 22/01 and ZBA 22/01, VIVE Developments (Eureka!), 1001-1051 King Street East and 534-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener — Transportation Study Review Comments Region of Waterloo staff have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) entitled "Eureka! (King Charles Block) Kitchener, ON Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study and Site Circulation Review" dated November 2021. The TIS was completed in support of the proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA 22/01) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA 22/01) for the proposed site redevelopment at the proposed property amalgamation bound by Regional Road 04 (Ottawa Street), Regional Road 64 (Charles Street East) and King Street East. Region of Waterloo staff provide the following TIS comments: • The study has used the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 signal report for the subject intersection analysis tables. As noted in the Region of Waterloo Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (updated July 2014) the intersection analysis tables should be completed using only the Synchro Lanes, Volumes and Timing Report. No further action required. • The proposed development will obtain vehicular access to King Street East, under the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener, and to Charles Street East. The TIS states "The developer install signs on-site (including in the parking garage) to direct residents and visitors to the King Street East driveway." There is to be no residential access from on site parking garage to Charles Street East, the Charles Street East access is only for delivery vehicles and garbage removal. Document Number: 3992436 Page 367 of 601 Overall, the Region of Waterloo has no major concerns with the conclusions and recommendations of the study and recommend that the OPA/ZBA application move forward. Under future Site Plan applications, Region of Waterloo staff will work with the developer to complete any necessary vehicular access design changes. Yours Truly, f� Jason Wigglesworth, C.E.T. Transportation Planner (519) 505-4536 CC: Steven Ryder, C.E.T. — City of Kitchener Pierre Chauvin, MA, MCI P, RPP — MHBC Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP — Region of Waterloo Paula Sawicki, P. Eng. — Region of Waterloo Greg Proctor, C.E.T. — Region of Waterloo Page 368 of 601 Katie Anderl, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Anderl, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SEPVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 226-752-8622 File: D17/2/22001 C14/2/22001 March 23, 2023 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 22/01 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 22/01 — 3rd submission 1001-1051 King Street East and 534-564 Charles Street East MHBC Planning (C/O Pierre Chauvin) on behalf of King - Charles Properties (Kitchener) (C/O Stephen Litt) CITY OF KITCHENER MHBC Planning on behalf of King Charles Properties has resubmitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 1001-1051 King Street East and 534-564 Charles Street East (referred to as subject lands) in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with two towers 12 and 30 Storeys tall atop a five (5) storey podium that shall contain a total of 464 residential apartments and 451.54 square metres of commercial space. Parking is proposed within the podium and through at grade visitor parking with access to the parking structure from King Street East. An additional service access is proposed from Charles Street East and provides access to the garbage and loading/move-in area. The subject lands are designated Mixed Use Corridor within the King Street East Secondary Plan Area and the applicant has applied for an Official Plan Amendment to add a Special Policy Area to the existing land use designation to increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio from 4.0 to 8.93. The subject lands are zoned High Intensity Mixed Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 1 of 10 Page 369 of 601 Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) Zone and the applicant has applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment to add Special Provisions to the zone to permit a maximum floor space ratio of 8.93 whereas the maximum FSR permitted is 4.0; to permit a front yard setback from King Street East at 1.4 metres (whereas 1.5m is required); to permit a minimum rear yard setback from Charles Street of 1.3 metres (whereas 1.5m is required); to permit dwelling units to be located at grade in a mixed use building; to permit a parking rate of 0.62 spaces/unit, visitor parking at 0.05/unit of the required parking and to permit parking for a Plaza Complex to be 0 spaces. The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following: Regional Comments Development Planninq Comments The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the site is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Planned Community Structure The ROP supports a Planned Community Structure based on a system of Nodes, Corridors and other areas that are linked via an integrated transportation system (ROP objective 2.1 and 2.2). Components of the Planned Community Structure include the Urban Area, Nodes, Corridors and other development areas including Urban Growth Centres (UGC's) and Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA's). Mostly all of the Region's future growth will occur within the Urban Area and Township Urban Area designations, with a substantial portion of this growth directed to the existing Built -Up Area of the Region through reurbanization. Focal points for reurbanization include Urban Growth Centres, Township Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes (ROP Section 2. B). Regional staff understand that the subject lands are located in a Major Transit Station Area of the City of Kitchener (Borden Station) and the applicant has proposed to add a special policy area to the existing Mixed Use Corridor Designation that will permit an increased Floor Space Ratio of 8.93 (whereas a max. of 4.0 is permitted currently). Regional staff acknowledge that the subject lands are within the vicinity of the ION Phase 1 Borden stop and that the subject lands are located adjacent to two existing transit corridors (King Street East and Charles Street East) with multiple bus routes that link directly to rapid transit stops within the Region of Waterloo. Furthermore, the subject lands are located in close proximity to a Planned Cycling Route (Ottawa Street South) within the Region. Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 2 of 10 Page 370 of 601 Land Use Compatibility: Following the review of the Land Use Compatibility study provided within the second submission, Regional staff acknowledge that the subject lands are located in the Mixed Use designation of the City of Kitchener Official Plan where residential uses are permitted. In addition, the subject lands are also located in the Regional Council Adopted Borden ION Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) which is an area where a change of use and infilling is to occur (e.g. from commercial and industrial to mixed-use residential and commercial uses). According to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) D-6 Series Guidelines, a reduced setback may be considered subject to the submission of a study (e.g. submission of a noise study). The applicant has submitted a noise feasibility study that addressed both transportation and stationary noise; which has been accepted by Regional staff. In addition, due to the area being located in a MTSA (an area to transition from one use to another with higher density developments) Regional staff have no further objection to the application from a land use compatibility perspective. In addition to the above, the following technical comments apply to the development proposal: Record of Site Condition There are multiple medium and high environmental threats located on and adjacent to the subject lands in accordance with the Region's Treats Inventory Database (TID) due to past land uses. The applicant is proposing a sensitive land use on site and as a result, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines for the Review of Development Applications on or Adjacent to Known or Potentially Contaminated Sites. The Record of Site Condition shall be completed and filed with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) in accordance with O.Reg 153/04 and the Region requires a copy of the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgment letter once the RSC has been filed and the Acknowledgement letter has been issued by the Ministry. Regional staff understand that the applicant has proposed to extend a special regulation applying to portions of the subject lands that requires a Record of Site Condition. A special regulation is not an option to implement the Record of Site Condition requirement within the Region's Implementation Guidelines. Therefore, the Region shall require a holding provision be implemented within the Zoning By-law until the RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have been received to the satisfaction of the Region for the entirety of the subject lands (except the lands to be dedicated as part of the road allowance). Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 3 of 10 Page 371 of 601 The following is the required wording for the holding provision: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) has been filed on the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Environmental Site Registry in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, as amended and the Ministry's Acknowledgement letter is received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Please ensure that any lands to be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo through the site plan process (road dedication lands) are excluded from any Record of Site Condition (RSC) for the proposed development. Region of Waterloo International Airport The Region can support the proposed development (building and crane) to a maximum elevation of 477m ASL based on the aeronautical report submitted with the application. Regional staff require the elevation to be clearly labelled on all plans moving forward and that details of any construction cranes be provided. The aeronautical assessment submitted with the application identifies a maximum allowable height of 477m ASL prior to impacting airport instrument approach procedures. The limit of 477m ASL cannot be exceeded as it would impact the Runway 08 instrument approach procedures and airport operations. Regional staff require the maximum height of 477m ASL to be implemented in the regulations of the Zoning By-law for both the proposed building and any related construction cranes. Any crane used for the construction of this development (e.g. towers, rooftop HVAC, communication towers/antennas) must be below the maximum height of 477m ASL. The applicant shall submit a land use submission form to NAV Canada as soon as possible. The application form can be found here: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/aeronautical-information/land-use-program.aspx. A separate land use form is also required for the crane. The applicant shall submit an Aeronautical Assessment Form for both the building and crane to Transportation Canada as soon as possible. The application form can be found on their website here: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/general-operating-flight- rules/marking-lighting-obstacles-air-navi aq tion. Corridor Planning Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Stage: Environmental (Transportation) Noise: Regional staff have received the "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Development, Eureka! (King Charles Block) Kitchener, Ontario" dated October 29, 2021 Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 4 of 10 Page 372 of 601 and completed by HGC Engineering and accept the conclusions and recommendations made within the Feasibility Study at this time. A Holding Provision shall be required to obtain a detailed transportation and vibration study that assesses noise from the Charles Street side -running ION. Furthermore, the signed Owner/Authorized Agent Statutory Declaration was not included in the noise report and must be included in the detailed noise study. Please be advised that the accepted mitigation measures and noise warning clauses shall be implemented through the future site plan agreement and through a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener as well as incorporated into a future condominium declaration, should a Condominium be proposed. Stationary Noise Review: Regional staff have reviewed the stationary noise aspects of the noise report entitled "Noise Feasibility Study Proposed Residential Development (King Charles Block) Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario" dated October 29, 2021, prepared by HGC Engineering Limited. 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 has yet to be known, a Holding Provision shall be required to obtain a detailed stationary noise study that includes details relating to floor plans, building elevations, mechanical drawings and equipment selections. Furthermore, the equipment selected shall comply with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) NPC -300 Noise Guideline. Finally, the detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the points of reception (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. The review of the detailed noise study shall be through the Region's third party noise consultant. The owner/developer shall be required to pay $4000.00 plus HST ($4,520.00 total) once the detailed noise study has been prepared and has been submitted to the Region. The accepted mitigation measures and noise warning clauses shall be implemented through the future site plan agreement and through a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener and shall be incorporated in the Condominium Declaration and Offers of Purchase and Sale, Lease/Rental Agreements. The stationary noise -warning clause to be included in the Registered Development agreement and Condominium Declaration at this time is: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of the adjacent Commercial Facilities and proposed residential development roof -top and other Noise sources, noise from the Commercial Facilities and proposed residential development roof -top and other Noise sources may at times be audible" Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 5 of 10 Page 373 of 601 Additional mitigation measures and warning clauses may be required and shall be determined through the detailed noise study. Transportation Impact Study Review: The Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study and Transportation Demand Study (TIS/TDM) entitled "EUREKA! (King Charles Block) Kitchener, ON Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study, and Site Circulation Review" dated November 2021 and completed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited has been reviewed and the Region has no objections to the TIS/TDM study at this stage (Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Stage). Please be advised that if any improvements to the Regional Road network are recommended through the site plan application process and approved by the Region of Waterloo, the developer may be responsible for any financial and property requirements associated with the road improvements. Access: The original concept proposed six (6) vehicular parking spaces within the service court area with access to Charles Street East, which was acceptable to the Region. The redesign of the concept proposes five (5) vehicular parking spaces to be accessed via the proposed Charles Street access. In addition, the site plan (dated February 10, 2023) shows that the access from Charles Street is not connected to the at -grade vehicular parking area adjacent to the commercial unit and parking garage. Regional staff have no further objection to the service access and shall continue to require that the Charles Street Service Area is separated from the adjacent parking area through the future site plan process. Stormwater Management & Site Grading: Region of Waterloo staff have received an electronic copy of the "Site Servicing Feasibility Study, Proposed Multi -Residential Development, 1027 King Street East, Kitchener" dated August 20, 2021, completed by Strik Baldinelli Moniz in support of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications and have no objection to the report at this stage. The following shall be addressed through the detailed design at the site plan stage: Water Servicing: As noted in the study, the site is flanked by both Charles Street East (Regional Road 64) and King Street East, which is under the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener in this area. There are existing watermain lines in both the King Street East and Charles Street East right of way. The study notes that water servicing for the proposed development would come from the existing 150mm diameter watermain in the King Street East right of way, but a design is not provided. Under detailed site servicing design for the development, Regional staff shall review any proposed water service connection. Please be advised that any redundant water service connections to the subject property from the Charles Street East right of way will need to be removed at Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 6 of 10 Page 374 of 601 the time of construction. Additional comments will be provided through the site plan review process. Sanitary Servicing: As noted in the study, the site is proposed to connect to the existing 200mm/225mm diameter sanitary sewer within the King Street East right of way, specifically at MH2A. This section of King Street East is under the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo has no concerns related to this proposed connection. When a detailed design for the sanitary sewer connection is submitted, Regional staff will provide detailed comments, including comments related to the removal of redundant sanitary sewer connections within the Charles Street East right of way. Stormwater Servicing: Through the study, it is assumed that the site development will have a storm sewer outlet to the King Street East right of way and that post -development flows will be restricted to the pre -development levels during the 5 -year and 100 -year storm events. The study does not provide a preliminary design of the stormwater features on site, but notes that detailed design will be completed in association with a future Site Plan application. The study also identifies a Weber Street East right of way in a few sections, but it appears that these are just typos, as the subject property does not abut Weber Street. This section of the report should be updated at the site plan application stage. Regional Road Dedication: While not a requirement through the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications, please ensure that the required road dedication along Charles Street East (Regional Road 64) is shown correctly through the future site plan submission. Regional staff have estimated the road dedication along Charles Street East to be approximately 3m (1 Oft), but the exact amount of road widening dedication must be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) in consultation with the Region's Transportation Planner. The land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes, and must be dedicated without cost and free of encumbrance. The completion of the road widening can be deferred to a future Site Plan application. In addition, a Phase I ESA, and possibly a Phase II ESA based on the findings of the Phase I, will be required for land to be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo. Please ensure that any lands to be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo are excluded from any Record of Site Condition (RSC) for the proposed development. Transit Planning: Grand River Transit (GRT) currently operates numerous Routes along the area of King Street East, Charles Street East, Ottawa Street South and Borden Avenue North with existing transit stops in close proximity to the proposed development. Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 7 of 10 Page 375 of 601 Region of Waterloo Transportation Capital Program: Ottawa Street North is being reconstructed in 2022 as per the Region of Waterloo's 10 - Year Transportation Capital Program (TCP). For more information regarding this project, please contact Mr. Greg Proctor(aproctor(a)regionofwaterloo.ca). Regional Water Services Regional staff acknowledge that connections to local services in the King Street East right-of-way have been proposed. Regional staff have no objection to this approach as no connection to regional watermains located in the Charles St East right-of-way shall be permitted in accordance with Section B.2.1.4.1 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services, January 2021. Housing Services The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. The Region's 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan contains an affordable housing target for Waterloo Region. The target is for 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 to be affordable to low and moderate income households. Staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site. Staff further recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs. In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides, a mechanism should be in place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit (based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan), the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $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. Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 8 of 10 Page 376 of 601 For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit (based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan), the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual household income for low and moderate income $1,470 renter households A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent Bachelor: $950 (AMR) in the regional market area 1 -Bedroom: $1,134 2 -Bedroom: $1,356 3 -Bedroom: $1,538 4+ Bedroom: $3,997 *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2021) In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above. Fees By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the review fees of $7,400.00 (received May 5, 2022). Conclusions and Implementation measures: The Region has no objection to the above noted Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment subject to the following being implemented within the Zoning By- law: The maximum height permitted on site for buildings any associated structures (e.g. rooftop HVAC, communication towers/antennas) and construction cranes shall be 477m ASL. 2. A holding provision for the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter. The required wording is: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) has been filed on the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Environmental Site Registry in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, as amended and the Ministry's Acknowledgement letter is received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 3. A holding provision to obtain a detailed transportation (road), vibration and stationary noise study. The required wording shall be: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a detailed transportation (road), vibration and stationary noise study have been completed and Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 9 of 10 Page 377 of 601 implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the points of reception (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. 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 Senior Planner C. King -Charles Properties (Kitchener) C/O Stephen Litt (Owner) Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning (Applicant) Document Number: 4341491 Version: 1 Page 10 of 10 Page 378 of 601 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 1001, 1007, 1015, 1027, 1051 King Street E and 530, 534, 542, 564 Charles Street E Application Type: OPA and ZBA Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) — City of Kitchener Commenter's name: Gaurang Khandelwal Email: gaurang.khandelwal@I<itchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7611 Written Comments Due: February 21, 2022 Date of comments: February 22, 2022 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application: • Sustainability Statement —1001, 1007, 1015, 1027, 1051 King Street East and 530, 534, 542, 564 Charles Street East, prepared by MHBC, dated November 10, 2021 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to develop the subject lands with a 30 storey (92 metre) high tower containing 491 residential units, 461 m2 of commercial space, and 282 vehicular parking spaces, regarding sustainability and energy conservation and provide the following: • Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is advanced, going forward all developments will need to include robust energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo) strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target. • The subject property is located within the PARTS Rockway Plan Area, Section 10.13 of the PARTS Rockway Plan recommends that development is equivalent to achieving a minimum LEED/LEED ND — Silver rating or comparable sustainable development standard. • The proposed development should be equivalent to achieving a minimum LEED silver rating or comparable sustainable development standard. • Program certification is not required but is encouraged. • Based on my review of the supporting documentation, a number of sustainable measures have been proposed such as: o Buildings designed and certified to achieve Energy Star requirements and reaching more than 5-11 values in wall insulation o Low consumption plumbing fixtures o Roof structure designed to support future PV installation 1I II) ag'a Page 379 of 601 • An updated Sustainability Statement is required to support the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment, incorporating a more progressive energy conservation and efficient design. Potential items for consideration are: o Electric vehicle charging stations o Community/ common gardens and urban agriculture o Green roofs o On-site composting o Use of alternative water supply and demand management systems such as rainwater harvesting and grey water reuse o Sustainable sourcing of construction and building materials 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy consumption. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the potential for implementing district energy exists. • PARTS Rockway Plan Section 10.13. The City has an interest in positioning the Rockway Station Area to exhibit leadership and advance best practices in the areas of sustainability and resilience. It is recommended to ensure that development in the PARTS Rockway Area is equivalent to achieving a minimum LEED / LEED ND — Silver rating or comparable sustainable development standard for Kitchener. The plans is available online at... https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN PARTS Rockway Plan. pdf 4. Advice: ➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability- initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise). ➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under 'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement 21IImage Page 380 of 601 From: Gaurang Khandelwal Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 4:48 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: RE -CIRCULATION - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi Katie, Thanks for bringing this to my notice. The section in the updated Urban Design Brief does not suffice the updated sustainability statement requirements. I'd like to see more progressive measures incorporated so that the development is equivalent of achieving a LEED silver rating or comparable standard. Although I'm not able to support the OPA and ZBA based on what was submitted, it would be acceptable for an updated SS to be submitted at Site Plan as most measures are incorporated into development design at a later stage. Let me know if you have any further questions. Regards, Gaurang Khandelwal (he/him), MA, MCIP, RPP Planner (Policy) I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7611 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 I auirain „Iklhaindellwall Ikiitcheineir..ca 0 0 V COD 0 0 0 mapping e • s s . . r • r tours If. From: Katie Anderl<Katiie.Andeirlltokiitclheiner.ca> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 4:25 PM To: Gaurang Khandelwal < a_q.ira!ng.] haindell�nrA@Jl i_tclhener.ca> Subject: FW: RE -CIRCULATION - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi Gaurang, I'm just finalizing my review of this updated submission. In response to the original circulation you had requested an updated to the sustainability work. They have included a short section (3.3) in the updated Urban Design Study. Does this meet your expectations/fulfill the requirements? Please see the ShareFile link below. Thanks! Katie From: Katie Anderl Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 9:59 AM To: Carlos Reyes <Cgrio' . eyes_ .Iki.tclh_ein_er:ca>; Dave Seller < aue .III _e_r_@_kii:tch rn r._ca.>; David Paetz <C?gyir .i" e.tx_ ..Ikii clheiner:c >; Ellen Straus <IE IVern_.,S rg_us _Ikjtclh_en.er:_ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig _.......... ............ Cameron < ireilg c..... pin eirrgor 1pgv gir cp!mn>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang Page 381 of 601 City of Kitchener OPA/ZBA COMMENT FORM Project Address: 1001 King Street East Date of Meeting: No meeting — OPA/ZBA updated materials Application Type: ZBA & OPA Comments Of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Steve Ryder Email: steven.ryder@kitchener.ca Phone: (519) 7412200 ext. 7152 Date of Comments: January 5, 2023 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments & Issues: • Based on the Agency Recirculation Letter (dated November 30, 2022), Transportation Services offer the following comments and questions: o The agency recirculation letter notes that the updated application still includes 486 units plus five (5) live/work units, however, the site plan submitted as part of the revised application notes that there are 465 units with five (5) live/work units. Confirmation of the exact amount should be provided; however, it is recognized that this would affect the site plan application rather than the zoning by-law amendment application which will legalize a parking rate, not the exact number of parking spaces that will be included in the development); o As noted in the Transportation Services comments from March 31, 2022, the minimum parking rate that Transportation Services would support is 0.6 parking spaces per unit. The revised application includes a proposed parking rate of 0.77 parking spaces per unit, which Transportation Services can support; o As noted in the Transportation Services comments from March 31, 2022, Transportation Services noted that a supportable rate of visitor parking spaces would equal 10% of the required parking as per the zoning by-law regulations. The revised application includes a total of 45 visitor spaces. ■ Under ZBL 2019-051, the required amount of visitor parking would equal 46.5 (or 47, rounded up) visitor parking spaces. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 382 of 601 ■ The proposed zoning by-law application is requesting "visitor parking at 9% of required parking", which can be interpreted as 9% of the total 465 spaces required (or 42 visitor spaces), or 9% of the approved rate of parking through this zoning by-law amendment application; ■ Given the circumstances and site context, Transportation Services would be able to support the application with a visitor parking rate of 0.1 spaces per (residential) unit; o Transportation Services can support the requested rate of 0.0 parking spaces for the commercial GFA as long as visitor parking is shared with commercial parking as there is virtually no on -street parking available in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development to support short-term commercial parking; o As noted in the Transportation Services comments from March 31, 2022, it was noted that the site would need to meet the minimum zoning regulations for Class A and Class B bicycle parking under ZBL 2019-051; ■ The revised application of 465 units would require a minimum of 233 Class A (secured) bicycle spaces, and the site plan submitted notes a total of 258 are being provided; ■ Transportation Services is satisfied with the proposed rate of 0.55 Class A spaces per unit. 2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • N/A 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: 0 N/A 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • N/A 5. Anticipated Fees: • N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 383 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form Address: 1001, 1007, 1015, 1027 and 1051 King St E and 530, 534, 542 and 564 Charles St E Owner: King -Charles Properties (Kitchener) Limited Application #: OPA 22/001/K/KA ZBA22/001/K/KA Comments Of: Urban Design- Planning Commenter's Name: Pegah Fahimian Email: Pegah.fahimian@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7342 Date of Comments: March 15, 2023 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) X❑ No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: • Updated Urban Design Brief, MHBC, March 15, 2023 • Updated Architectural Floor plans by NEO Architecture Inc, Feb 10, 2023 • Updated Shadow Study by NEO Architecture Inc, Feb 10, 2023 • Updated Wind Study - Pedestrian Level Wind — Preliminary Impact Assessment. Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory report 2. Site -Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the updated/revised documentation noted below that has been submitted in support of an OPA and ZBA to add Special Provisions to the existing High -Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU - 3). While the concept of residential intensification on this site is positive, and many previous staff comments have been incorporated into the proposal, some design modifications must be addressed in the Site Plan Application to create a development proposal that is well-designed and appropriate for this site and neighbourhood. Updated Design Brief- March 15, 2023 Tall Building Design Analysis: The tall building design guidelines are an excellent compatibility test for proposals exceeding their zoning permissions. The proposal meets %76 of the separation target on the West side and exceeds the separation target on the east side. Building Design: 4 -storey pedestrian -scaled podium along King and Charles Street distinguished by tall towers, step -backs and intended architectural treatment. The proposed relative height accommodates human -scaled built form along streetscapes while accommodating compatibility matters. Contemporary architectural style and details are to be refined through the site plan process. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community aw of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form On-site Amenity area: • Required amenity space calculations are contained in the Urban Design Manual and include two parts — one for a general amenity area and one for children's play facilities in multiple residential developments. (2m2 x #units) + (2.5m2 x #bedrooms - #units) = outdoor amenity space. (2x464) + (2.5 x 557- 464) = 928 + ( 1392 -464) = 1857 sq.m • The updated UDB did not provide any commentary or precedent images related to "the provision of robust on-site amenity space for all ages and abilities" that was requested. Additional information should be provided regarding the various on-site amenity spaces in the UDB (common, individual, indoor, and outdoor). • The Urban Design Brief should include text and conceptual images that demonstrate the commitment to providing sufficient and appropriate amenity space for all potential residents on site Updated Shadow Studies, NEO Architecture Inc, Feb 10, 2023: The submitted shadow analysis is acceptable as it confirms that the proposal maintained access to at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight to nearby sidewalks and open spaces. Updated Wind Study - Pedestrian Level Wind — Preliminary Impact Assessment. Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel A further 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 study, the main public street -level areas along King and Charles Streets are expected to experience wind conditions consistent with the intended usage year-round; this includes the entrances and sidewalks. For the amenity terrace area, some strategies have been identified to improve upon comfort, with focus on extending summer usage of the areas. A revised design proposal should be developed that addresses the wind impacts outlined in the submitted wind study. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community P "AM of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form 3. Comments on Submitted Documents Updated Architectural Floor plans- NEO Architecture Inc, • For tall buildings with retail or other active uses at grade, provide a ground floor height of 4.5m (minimum) to permit a variety of retail types and activities. • The building facades fronting I<ing and Charles Street should contain an appropriate amount of glazing and articulation, particularly along the lower 5m where the building addresses the sidewalk. • The underground parking structure should have a sufficient setback from the property lines to accommodate the necessary soil volume to support required large-statured, high -canopy trees. • The location of residential and commercial garbage storage, loading area and Passenger pick up /drop-off area should be noted on the site plan. • The area between the building's face and the property line should be well integrated with the street and public realm to deliver high-quality, seamless private, semi -private and public spaces. • Provide natural surveillance by employing high percentages of glazing, active uses at ground level and incorporating more units with windows and balconies on the main facade with views onto the street • The building 's interface and relationship with the street and adjacent properties should be thoroughly explored. • 3 -bed units are desirable as they provide more living space for families. A higher percentage of these units might help with community engagement. • All utility locations, including the meter room and transformer room to be shown on the layout. Building -mounted or ground-based AC units should be located away from public view and fully screened. • Wind assessment and shadow study is required for outdoor amenities and the pedestrian realm. Summary: In summary, Urban Design staff are supportive of the zone change/official plan amendment. While the concept of residential intensification on this site is positive and many previous staff comments have been incorporated into the proposal, Urban Design staff recommend that the Urban Design Brief be endorsed, and that staff be directed to implement the Urban Design Brief through future Site Plan Approval processes. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 1001 et al King St E Owner: King -Charles Properties (Kitchener) / Vive Application: OPA22/001/K/KA and ZBA22/001/K/KA recirculation Nov 2022 Comments Of: Parks & Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Jan 06 2023 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) 0 No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: I have reviewed the updated/revised documentation noted below that has been submitted in support of an OPA and ZBA to add Special Provisions to the existing High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) and permit: • a maximum floor space ratio of 9.05 instead of 4.0. • a dwelling unit to be located at grade in a mixed use building • a parking rate of 0.77 spaces per unit, visitor parking at 9% of required parking, and to permit parking for commercial uses to be 0.0. • a 0.0 metre setback to both King St and Charles St. Agency re -Circulation Letter dated Nov 30 2022 Updated — Planning Justification Report (Addendum) Updated — Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevation Drawings — NEO Architecture no rev#, dated Nov 18 2022 Updated — Urban Design Brief MHBC report amended November 2022 Updated — Shadow Study — NEO Architecture no rev #, professional seal date Dec 14/21 Updated — Renderings — no author, no date Updated — Wind Study— BLWTL report dated Nov 29 2022 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: 1) The gross and net site area statistics vary across documents and planning submissions and should be verified and coordinated. 2) The King East Planning Community is critically underserved by active park space with only 0.6 sq.m./person of active park space — well below the city wide average of 9.8 sq.m./person. This deficiency will increase as a result of the proposed intensification. Current active local park access is reliant upon Knollwood Park and Kauffman Park which are located in adjacent Planning Communities and over 500m away. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community �`of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form The City is expecting that parkland dedication will be met, at least in part, through the dedication of physical parkland within the neighbourhood to support the proposed residential growth on site. Parks & Cemeteries is willing to consider dedication alternatives involving offsite dedication of suitable land with cash in lieu of land comprising the balance of the dedication requirement. The developer has previously proposed a 0.88ha (0.21 ac) parcel of land at the southeast corner of King St E and Borden Ave (967 and 977 King St E) as a physical land dedication to fulfil parkland dedication requirements. Is this still part of the development proposal; it is referenced in the Updated Urban Design Brief pg 19? The City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw and Park Dedication Policy have recently been updated and new parkland dedication criteria, rates and land values have been approved by Council on August 22, 2022. The transition provisions that are included within the Bylaw allow for formal Planning Act applications that have been deemed complete to proceed under the old Park Dedication By-law 2008-93 but require that the application receive final site plan approval within 12 months. If final site plan approval is not granted within this time the new Park Dedication Bylaw, Policy and rates will apply. The Bylaw is under appeal. Further changes to the Bylaw may be required as a result of the Bill 23 — More Homes Built Faster Act. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the OPA and ZBA and assessed at the required Site Plan application and required as a condition of final Site Plan approval. Based on the transition provisions in the Park Dedication Bylaw 2022- 101 and Park Dedication Policy, this development proposal (465 units — 6 existing and a net site area of 0.5855ha) is eligible to utilize the Multiple Residential (Apartment) land class valuation of $1,359,000.00 per hectare and applying the MHBFA revised parkland dedication rate of 1ha/1000 units $623,781 would be required. Using the rates and caps associated with bylaw 2022-101 and the MHBFA, park dedication of $1,149,509 would be required 3) As there is little active public parkland in the immediate neighbourhood, the provision of on-site amenities suitable to all ages, including children's play facilities, will be critical to this proposal. The site plan, PJR, UDB, shadow studies and wind studies should reflect and accommodate on- site amenity spaces and public dedication of off-site land for parkland as appropriate. 3. Comments on Submitted Documents 1) Updated — Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevation Drawings — NEO Architecture no rev#, dated Nov 18 2022. Updated — Shadow Study — NEO Architecture no rev #, professional seal date Dec 14/21. Updated — Renderings — no author, no date a) The conceptual site and building layout should be revised to incorporate comments below b) Section 2.1.5 Vision and Design Objectives and Section 3.2 Transit Supportive Design of the Updated Urban Design Brief indicate that mid -block connections and 'safe and comfortable pedestrian connections through the site' will be provided; the preliminary site plan should be adjusted to indicate clear, safe at -grade pedestrian connections between King St E and Charles St E. that will also serve the at -grade parking and allow barrier free access to the King St E entrance to the building if approaching from Charles St E. Anticipated wind impacts should be considered in building design. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form c) The Site Plan Concept pg 20 and 37 of the UDB differs from the Updated NEO Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevation Drawings submission. d) Section 3.1 Site Design pg 21, indicates that the outdoor amenity area is provided on the seventh level of the proposed building and will be detailed through detailed landscape design. This section should be expanded upon to include a commitment to providing robust on-site outdoor amenity space that achieves — as a minimum - the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual amenity space standards and incorporates active and passive amenity features for all ages and abilities including children's play equipment. Conceptual design details/images for this commitment should be included illustrating active and passive features along with play equipment. e) All technical studies should support the preliminary site design including on-site amenity spaces and show good solar access and adequate protection from wind and noise; solar access for the proposed outdoor amenity area appears limited. f) Section 4.2 Analysis of Microclimate Impacts — Shadow Study; no commentary is provided with respect to the shadow impacts on the proposed outdoor amenity area within the site; solar access for the proposed outdoor amenity area appears limited. g) Section 4.2 Analysis of Microclimate Impacts — Pedestrian Wind Study; a detailed quantitative study is required. A detailed wind tunnel study should be submitted as part of a complete Site Plan application — see additional comments below h) A revised Urban Design Brief is required 2) Planning Justification Report— MHBC document dated November 2021 (Addendum) a) The site is within the King East Planning Community which is critically underserved with active park space and through previous Parks and Cemeteries comments for the Planning applications P&C have requested that the Planning Justification Report include an analysis and discussion of how the proposed development will impact the existing neighbourhood including... the availability of services and infrastructure related to parks, open space, urban forests and community facilities relative to the..... increase in density specifically referencing the objectives and policies and in Part C Section 8: Parks, Open Space, Urban Forests and Community Facilities and indicating how the proposal will implement / achieve the policy objectives. b) The PJR Addendum contained in a letter from MHBC included the following statement regarding Amenity Spaces: Common amenity space is planned internal to the development (on Floor 7 at the base of the towers). The amenity room extends between both towers and is intended for use by all residents. In addition, there is an outdoor common amenity space planned on top of the podium structure. The outdoor amenity space is framed by the 'L' shaped tower. The outdoor amenity space will be detailed through the site plan process, and will include both hard and soft landscaping for passive recreation. c) Considering the critical deficit of active park space in the immediate neighbourhood and the proposed increase of over 800 new residents, this commentary should be updated to include a commitment to providing robust on-site outdoor amenity space that achieves — as a minimum - the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual amenity space standards and A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community P` 'AM of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form incorporates active and passive amenity features for all ages and abilities including children's play equipment. d) The anticipated zoning should be updated to include specific provisions for minimum outdoor amenity spaces that reflects these standards: (2m2 x #units) + (2.5m2 x #bedrooms - #units) = outdoor amenity space. For the current development concept with 344 1 - bedroom units and 121 2-bedreoom units, which would be 1232m2 of outdoor amenity space; 506m2 is shown on level 7 of the preliminary site plan. e) The Urban Design Brief should include conceptual design details/images for this commitment illustrating suitable amenities for all ages and abilities including seating and play equipment. All technical studies should support the preliminary site design showing on-site amenity spaces and demonstrate good solar access and adequate protection from wind and noise. f) A revised Planning Justification Report/Addendum is required 3) Pedestrian Level Wind Preliminary Impact Assessment— BLWTL report dated Nov 29, 2022. a) The report indicates that it is a preliminary high-level desk -top assessment and that a detailed quantitative study is required. That detailed wind tunnel study should be submitted as part of a complete Site Plan application and include receptors at several points on the proposed podium amenity space; several sidewalk locations on both King St E and Charles St E and representative locations across the anticipated parkland dedication Darcel: no off-site wind analysis has been provided. b) With a O.Om proposed building setback along both King St E and Charles St E, much of the vegetation and landscape features that the Report recommends for reducing wind speeds along public sidewalks will required to be located within the right of way rather than on the development site. The presence of ION catenary lines along Charles St E will further limit / eliminate tree plantings within the right of way and alternative means of wind mitigation will be required. The presence of underground parking structure will also limit the ability to implement tree planting on-site. c) Building and site design changes should be considered in conjunction with requested zoning setbacks to accommodate the identified wind mitigation requirements. 4) Proposed Zoning a) If off-site park dedication is anticipated, zoning should reflect the anticipated park use for the lands (OSR-1) b) The anticipated zoning for the development site should be updated to include specific provisions for minimum outdoor amenity spaces that reflects the Urban Design Manual standards: (2m2 x #units) + (2.5m2 x #bedrooms - #units) = outdoor amenity space. For the current development concept with 344 1 -bedroom units and 121 2-bedreoom units, this ould be 1232m2 of outdoor amenity space. 506m2 is shown on level 7 of the preliminary site plan. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community u• ' City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form c) The adverse streetscape and microclimate impacts of a 0.0m building setback along both Charles St E and King St E should be considered. The developer should demonstrate the ability and commitment to provide on-site mitigation prior to recommended approval. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy • City of Kitchener Parkland Dedication Policy and Bylaw 2022-101 • City of Kitchener Development Manual • PARTS Rockway Plan • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law • Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan • Urban Design Manual 4. Anticipated Fees: The parkland dedication requirement for this submission is deferred and will be assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the OPA and ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval Parkland dedication will be required for the site plan application as a combination of physical parkland/park investment on-site (or within the neighbourhood) and cash -in -lieu of land. As part of the physical dedication of land a number of conditions will apply: A Park, Trail and Open Space Development Financing Agreement (PDFA/PTOSDFA): prepared and executed by legal services. Soil testing and report is required as outlined in the development manual including due diligence in environmental analyses including Phase I ESA as per current version of CSA - Z768), and, if required Phase II ESA as per current version of CSA Z769. If results of ESA are deemed acceptable by City of Kitchener, the property will be accepted as parkland dedication, given that all other requirements are met. If contamination is revealed through ESA, the developer shall incur all costs to remediate prior to dedication of property to the City of Kitchener Legal survey of the dedication portion of the property Topographic survey of the dedication portion of the property following park block development A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community �`of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Demolition and removal of all existing structures within the dedicated property including but not limited to all foundations, servicing, above ground structures, and hard surfacing Removal of all existing rubbish or debris within the property boundaries Park Block development minimum requirements are met, as specified in section L.S. of the Kitchener Development Manual, including grading, servicing, topsoil, seeding and sodding Dedication requirements are subject to the Parkland Dedication Policy current at the time of a formal site plan application. Please be advised that the City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy have been updated by Council in August 2022 and the Bylaw is currently under appeal. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community aw of 601 From: planninganddevelopment <planninganddevelopment@bell.ca> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 2:22 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Bell Canada doesn't have any comments for the OPA/Z LA. We will provide comments at the Draft Plan of Subdivision/Condo phase. Ryan Courvilllle Access Network Provisioning Manager 1I Planning and Development C: 41.6-570-6726 1.00 Borough Dr. FII. 5 1roironto, Ontario From: Katie Anderl <IKatii:e_. n.cle ll.._Ikii.tclh e1ne lr:c > Sent: March 23, 2022 12:25 PM Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi, This is a friendly reminder to please provide any comments you may have with respect to the proposed OPA/ZBA for 1001 King St E. Thanks, Katie From: Christine Kompter <Chri.s:tu_ro_e_.V<ar1u. r 11 ofi to ru o cp> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 4:05 PM To: DL _# DSD Planning <.)S_(�-6�1g_rr_rr n [..YMs'ion@kotchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones < a_rp_rr_,McCrimmoIn-Jon s..$ kitc_hener.o_ca>; >; Dave Seller <Daye_.S .0.1_ _ir Htc_hener._ca>; David Paetz <.......................................................ii _ Iki.................................................... l >; Feds <v.Red feds,ca>; GRCA - Planning (Ipll_q_ri_niiing@ randriver.ca) < Ilannin randriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <4S.ir� .Reiitzellkiitcheiner.ca>; >; Jim Edmondson < :i.ittJ_..IE;, .i>nra_n snln..@.Ikirt l............................. p .>; Justin Readman <�u�s. %in..._I e inr9 _in_ Ikiitclh_en_er.,.ca.>; Katherine Hughes <,K.tlh_.iriin...II::N_p.IhesClkitclhener.ca>; I< -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gili irin..@.Ikydiro.oin.ca>; Linda Cooper <I.::ii.in_d_a. Qoc.per_ Ikiitc.lh_e.iner cp>; Mike Seiling <IMi.lk .:.S .iil.il_n'@kiitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <,Fxecu.u.tiv Irl .J.f Jnr n rN �r Its Ipinn lnt pl g.caul>; Park Planning (SM) <Parlk.Pllaininiiing_ _kiitcln in lr.c >; Region -Planning <, II Inlniiln pn!icatiialns@!rgg.ii_oin_of ateirlloo.ca>; ....................................................... .. .... .........._ Property Data Administrator (SM) <Prolp..[� !Ig r\ ii in l iiaclha~in r.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.lnlloir In !ki clheinelr. ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ry. E@@ tclne_rler.c >; Sylvie Eastman <Syllyiia..IFastrr an. _Ikiitc.lhelnera_ca>; WCDSB - Planning <Ipll�ininiiln �urcdslk�.c�>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (ellgj e burns@ rdsb c ) <ela_I_n burins rdsl c >; WRDSB - Planning <pl inri r7 r slla.c > Page 393 of 601 From: Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 2:30 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Hi Katie, This is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment. Thanks, I°irevoir III°leywood Resource IRllnnninirnE,r Grand IG liver Conservation Authority fl!2 wood a grarndiriiveir ca w y ,, irairndiriiveir„ca: I , ,in„In t.... iitIn......u:1.......In..... ocii ,ll......innedIi . From: Christine Kompter<pnru_s:tp_ro__o.V<c±_ulu.rwte�r@kitcheneraca> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 4:05 PM To: _DL _# DSD Planning <Ifa l[ -i:'I _rr_rr_o_rngl[)isvu_sp: un._e k< clh_e_ner.c >; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrommon-Jones@kit.chener..c. >, Bell - c/o WSP «urcuVations@_ m.counn>; Dave Seller <,Piave_.Se.IIe_r:.@_kitcheun_er.cp David Paetz <Dava d._P_ etz_��.kitc.h_e_ri_e.roca.>; Feds <y e e :F ¢ s. r .>; Planning <raiannin�randriveroca>; Greg Reitzel <G.reg.iteitzei@kitchener,ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <Il mc]_q.,se lla_in_innii.ing@Ihy .ir ine.e m>; Jim Edmondson <)ilm. _incrin prn( kilt In in it c ,>; Justin Readman <Ju.stin. Read man@_kiitche n.eira_ca>; Katherine Hughes <lKatlher.i_in_e_ II.:Nusuglh!s.@.. iitch.e neir.ca>; K -W Hydro - ....................................................................... Greig Cameron <gemircrinIkonrlhycre..pin..a>; Linda Cooper <I.:.iiin..rirIkiitclhinr>; Mike Selling <Mulke.Seilling@I ii clheiner ¢ >, Ontario Power Generation <IE xecutuvevp I �nrainda vellun in rnt@cnpg.¢ lin>; ................................................... Park Planning (SM) <Pa.rlk._Pllgininiing@ ii.tchei.eir:_ca>; Region - Planning _.. <Pllaininiiing Ap.p!iicaa rns@reg.iioncnfwateirlloo.c >; Property Data Administrator (SM) <,C"rrnlP_ :1 % dimiin «Ilkirtclh in ir.c >; Robert Morgan <,RobertaM irgain@II<ii lh in r a >; Steven Ryder <Steven.If�y er@Ikir clheiner.e >; Sylvie Eastman <Syllnriie:Fgs: rnn in@I iiia lh irneir..ca.>; WCDSB -Planning .......................................... <IPII nniing@ rdslb.c >; WRDSB - Board Secretary (gjlgji_fn_e....._Ib nuns@yrr s ) <ell i.inne....._burins@ WRDSB -Planning <In.Il in.i2J n @onrir¢ Cc: Katie Anderl <IKatie.AnderIC@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Please see attached. Additional documentation is saved in AMANDA (folders 22-100385 & 22-100386) for internal staff reference & S_harelFille for external agencies. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t” Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca Page 394 of 601 From: Jordan Neale <Jordan.Neale@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 4:23 PM To: Katie Anderl Cc: Christine Kompter Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) From: Planning Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 4:21 PM To: Christine Kompter<CIhirii_stir_r�_e_,II<c�irnptgji.@ plhprn ir: > Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (1001 King Street East) Good Afternoon Katie, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A) That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). B) That the developer shall include the following wording in the site plan agreement to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: "In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STS WR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan.Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 From: Christine Kompter <Chrus.d n_e_o.V<rr_u1a. te�rC kutcheneiraca> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 4:05 PM To: DL _# DSD Planning <[.')SI[)- I _n_n_o_ngl[)isyu_sp:aln._e 0<u clh_e_roero_c >; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <l grc rr.V B �rqu rropun-�c��ngs Vcitchenerxa>, Bell - c/o WSP <dreWadons.@y spocaaunu>; Dave Seller ........_ ......... ........ ......... <,Dpve.,Selll ir@Ikirtplhen_er ca>; David Paetz <, avii_d_.P_ etz.(.!�i.t lhener.ca>; Feds <vpp ..@.F d5...g>; GRCA - Planning (12.II nniing@.glrpina _riv r...ca) < Il ininiirn @gEgjgdiri'iveir.cp>; Greg Reitzel <Gireg._[3!g�iitZ ll@!ki.tc.lhener:ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <I induseip.ing@Ih .irppin . inm>; Jim Edmondson <Jiii.irn_.Edrnprndspin .lkil.tr.lh_e_in_er.,ca>; Justin Readman <,Ju.asUn.Rea.drn.an lkiit lh in r.pp>; ..... Katherine Hughes<IKatheiriiine._H�uglh_�s..@.Ikil.tclhener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron Page 395 of 601 v E E O U T C 7 E E O U W X O v CL CL a Ora O bA N .� m ma) }; Q) n o 3 o m °i a) tea) v Q) c T a) > OQ) 3 '0 a) ^iOW ate) Q -z:: -2 I W L N U - U 4 V dA a) OO O X OL -- O 4- O U+- ~+ a U0 ro N ro ° Q E O O N-0 �� CL 73 m O CU + O ra > L O O a) Y O O •> M t In O bA O N ? -0 O aLO a) C a�-•1 Q Y � la � hA .- CL t T Ln a) O +-+ L L i O O .— —_ �n to O +� C y = O a"'' O > O Q" ra b a) .- = —O Y m Vi a) > t T = n E vi 7 +�-+ QJ bA 7 N ,� O L Q in i p a) L L O � bO L ai O O U O , C ° 41 O 41 O a) O O > OC14 Q L ra _0 7 cn a) ON i co a� U m O O L ra E +� in N )} Q) L O Q M (p a) Q� � i '� •� -0 - t T ° cn o v > v '� ++ + + - a ra N } L �1 L (a —_ ra+ V1 Y L N Q N a--1 Y (a r6 4- 'L ra L Q a� 4- ra a) Q •L ra v ra L ° c to CL � � o + v ra � +-1 0 L a Q ra +-I S c � a) +-1 a) a) a E a) n N v ) 1 a) ro 70 Y L 7 a) *' p L ro a) r6 « r6 5' 7 -0 a) t +•+ U ra a) > M + Q p E a a) +� O Q C �O � > 'a0 O O ° O�-E-0 +, C O `L° } to +' O � n ° _CL ° a, o 4- o ° a, O a) v >� p L T 5 = a--' H O ut 7 0 0 O +, L i= � N 0 U a) O .� O 7 'a +' on ro + p O a) > -6 In m b0 O Q)'+ +J ra O •+� L O mQ 6 co O p m O S Z C6 V) Ln a) +' L a) o0 U L C 7 a1 L C O in O O _0b,0 O L `) �' a) a-•1 r6 E � a) >. '� 3 OO C '� — O U O > 3 7 t C 7 ro a) a) 3 U 7 L N ra U 7 O O t n O O a) > Ov) CL— t +� O +' O> L a) pp L Q a--1 C >i a) O OA 73 ra t L > cu L r6 a) '� E L N U OL O OU ro L +•� 'en .aj `� C o C a) ° ra Q C 7 �O O E a� Q an 4O VI O — ++ l� C to O +' a) � p t in +-+ L O O t W N Q O in O +� L T + E U N N N >O E> a) O '6 .0 a0 M � to in O a�--I 7 }1 Ln ma) Q a) C a) +� ° ro u L > ONO ° Q 7 O O 7 0 o U bON a ) O — aOa)) O_ -0 p VI p� p en Q T U Y+- YO M > ° L+v > oU M E�N „ -se p Yra L)uo M 4 VQ LYL >- �U Ln ro m p O c O O +CLOa) ++aL _ O C O O a) O U 7VS C Vv c v N U p _0 u�Z ai - ra a) O c > 0) pv .� 0 0 i n N O C N ra O OO l/1 n d0 a '6 a) N E bA n }' a) `n 'p O C L v a: I} a O �..FbD V r° _s _� v :a a: aJ ra ° '� �_ �_ v i > ra w ° '+J 7 U +•1 � () L N ra i6 > — L a) I L) v 7 '7 L U '7 +' C O u +' cn O O +' O p Q V� Q O 7 O ra i ra +_ N 0- ra O p :%� +-1 }1 .� VI L �-- N N O N v � +.1 ra a) LL T C v 0 C a) l6 L L fu cc c[a Z 0 G E E O u T E E O U w X C v sZ O_ a > 0' O 6, to co O E O a) m C OU) Cn (n N co -0 C 2: a) O O m N 0_ p 0 N a) L L 'p p t y O O O N} O c6 s� o O� o M > O Cmj O �� uj O (CD Op_ > O E '� L N m 0 U L a) .� N a) U O L) M L (B O 0- O O a) O Cn Q a) cn N z 3 a) _ N a a) ul O O� U� m O N _O M �.0 O Q0 0)(n Y U) o a CL m o > 0 cn c O 2 n Cz - H .N C O 0 a) O m o a� �'U OE n O M U) a) C a) T M -0 73Q C c p .� m m p i O a) 0 a) OU O n cn N <n •' T ,� p> i 3 U) C N C C �� m O C6 p �� N E = U C6— cn E Q � o CQ— o m � O -C v_> o) — - C � � U � a) ai C C O ��, .0 E cN6 O °m a) O oma= MC CL E 3 z)� in ���� mo m N N— p F0 �O �� E cn��- Na d.S 'in �� d m E U C O fn N > C m O U a)O C_ Q m C O `� cn U C O m Y m O a) '> m o o U 3 a) 0 o N 3� m" E .� .O 2-E m a) Co U- - co �. O O Ctf c O O Q i O) .� > O w 3 OQ C o <n a) CD O a) p ate C) C (n N� D- OY o O m a) a) c �`73 — N N _ Q CD O E C-' O O Q SZ O_ p- p a) m a) a) n O > �to a) - c C 0) Co N O L) j -O C O LL w O a) a) a) '� _ to Ca O c > � C a) U .O a) U -0 LU L a) a) a) o 0)`� C ) m 0 C O C L 3 N 0 Co U)—� O C -- `) a) fn i a) C N Cd E a) J -_M C m C7) O C a) O a) is cu 0Y U o a 0-0 mY ai o C ca 0 0 3 E is Y a) L a) ° m cn O o 3 E C C 72 �' ~� Q ~ E ao 3 �o o cn 0 �.o m U) _0 p 0> O C p 3-0 L m L o C`' 0 3 O (n • V) L c 7 'C C o m � m C m m = a) -0 O O O O �. fn O_ .0 O >, CL L> a) p l6 -0 > O Z� w cz m m O E 5 c F- a) O_ O E 7 0-0 O V C > O Cn�— O p to y- a) c0) O (B O E C m N m L p O 2 m cn -0 m C Y 0-o � E 0 O N E ate) a` )) C a) o o Co Z 0 > Q m a) o ai a) CLE u' E•co)00- c a)0 =o ��ami �� m U) — Q p m o O .� a' 0 0 � C ca c a) a N a) a) o C � � C ��~ C6 n= a) >.0 > Lo N o O O O a -_ Lr - C zn -0 O_ Cn E Cm a) o c p 0 0 OU � T p p o Y O � a) cn O 0- a) OL � `� 7 L 0- `� O C a) C) - N C a) ?� m U (0 o 'aCO mi .� -0 m C a) N °) a) � E > >+ L N 2 (6 C6 a) 7 M =N — (n c Q o E cm O L fB U) 3 o E a) — 3 6-2 o U) E U U 2 — o 2 c-0 �� N N N ['n lV O N O lV O rr N v a) N L T {n n O � � 2 L U Iu > L l- O ) -0-0 w (D C O y E E / : E E \ zu/ CL/ CL 2 // / / 3 = a m a Q/ \ ` ® §±.\n e / 7\0 \ ` \0 E 5 %\/ 5=0 \/ <I 5 -__ = G 2a \/k \<0 �) / /% < L)777 R p\\ a- ¥ / \ k ƒ 5�5 » /) $ _ /§2 $ \§iE 0 / 5 k 5{ - k / g=G __\E a a22 ) _ »3 E] E / /-0 ± $ 33% ® > 0 E3 0 . =% 0G± 2 0 ± 27 \ D Co m \ k/ -0 E - 70 0 / \ . �\ \ �k kƒ\o \\ ) �// ( co a) / /\ ®® \�5 z $J E 2 2 E ® 3c2$ m - CO \\ 2/ I= GJ0 \ //\ 0 7/ f/ 2,) >_0 ���f # c 2 \} 0) .F 3R o %S� = 2 = o ca°° = 3 ±E {» (D \°/ @ \/�\ > >2 \U) °=caQ k /\ / / ®\ �= m2 �e» G \\»2 E kc �� \k �3$ \ £'\/ cn ƒ \/ \ƒ c= 2/E 2j 2\\E } §(2 @QQ `3 /2) E 2&% 6 2 A= ° o =-§ G� a) __-0 GEE ° = - =0 £ � ��®m% _= EE®� 3 a2F /$/ ¥ �E a-� '-= a) 0 J J\ \£ /ƒ\ 22 \5\\ E 7E0 < f= 2= /R §%� = L) \°a \ /m ��� �� M-0 Z— 2 7/\ n o0- ±a %4 w@=o R 7c E .m C) \( %-g �yC >§ °_m_ Eze- £ )/2 & / o r I °;37 E »\/ o 0 0 E_ �a °0» \0 >e acs° ° 2�_ \ �- \/ b= /E§ <g �§k& 4 �}/ co f : c6 w32 w= aI7E « aat / ± 0 Q 0 0 D q m � E � a) E E O u T C O E E O w X c v CL CL a O Cn E -o p a) p) Co V) (0 C0 O N a) U H to "= Nr OU c D L (0 W' J a) O O N O V) _ (D Q a) L o U c O O T O)70 $ "a a) E p Co O -p Y L a O OU p U (0 O O i O C p p (0 >i _- c) a) c — a) a) — C p a) U c a) p E (0 t0 N a) N -0 C) � a) �— 0 O -Co N0 O (o O o "Orn_O O73 r�a)LN N 0 O __ (0 oa) n O`u CO �U) E > L" � E E a) X � o � �p— O o � (n N_ U N O c 0S� a O_ a) x U) N �p Coa) S N—r-Q p a) a) U c a ui cn �� � _c -_ -0p -0o m N m 0mo aMi�� o pp _r_ _ a) CZ in oa � No- •U cU) O ca)Y O Co >� N to to a5 c 6) o N 0 N Qo c0 3 '� (0 � LO � o — � [a O •� O a) >, (0 a) U Co _0 c0 coc a) U m 07 (0 ± O > (0 o a) cn c •= > __ _ Cu — N— c E (n c M �' Cn C O z 0— O-0 N i a) p O) � EOL'co_ L a) O i N O O_ (0 o j, >, � N � Q � (0 D- p N O i c L Lo> w OL i O j o o (n C (0 E (0 U> a) a) N � � U (0 e (n L L p) U) N c a) (n O > L 7 L O> 7 0 O_ i "p O_ Q -p N ��., a) O OU E a) O L c c (0 i U U a) >, Q) c f0 J N N CNO o a) >2i c> O a) a)Ec L= O U a) O W ocn c L 7 L0 � N (nfl - = ma N W p'� pc> a) N ESU c O a) O N c >i (>0 O —O O E N@ N c "0 p E U Q � 0-0 o Ma) o- : CZ .oc�N c�a0)np 3 m E co n o N ) O n �'n YF, Q o o -r 73 Cn 0O fO E p m E a)n o O OL Ot OOO c > _ O O O iE c (0 M N ON L0)0 N O 2E CL 0 EO Q O Q > p a) ( to p _iN 0 m Qa)O X a) E CO cm a)r 0 O cm -F= nN O U O a) O O 7 ) -0Cz y— a) (0 p c c Q n3 p a) a) >, � L O m c a) -0- E c L (n a) "' N L Co o U a) c O .D .0 -0 O O a)— Q -2-0 Cn c-0 O a) L C >, >— o O •— E 0) N p �j L >, n � L c L Q L0 N-0 c c N F: E c E o }' (0 0 0 N U `� c L (0 p O U) -O a) a) N a) >, O Q L �O E c >>+ Q .0) a) E (—° (D E E N c0 c a L> o5 -0 L L O p =_ p a) U o -0-:F o _ 2 E- o c H 3 H Q 1 Q = : O I (n Q cn a) z — N N O O N N � N N N C C (B (SS O (0 E (0 � hA O _ c O c (6 cu L In A E p E L 5 ` L Q / \ \ / \ £ . \ CD j E / m g 7 m \ E 0 / / 2 E / � k \ / L k \ 2 \ R 0 \ � [ \ m % 2 E / \ \ \ E / / 2 q 3 / ƒƒ cz L)¥ \ / 0-\ y ) f \ \ a) 2 / \ / \ \ E 2 G \ E L) @ _ £ > g // E E£ / 5 _=2 =2 = E kn \ n e f R n = q cu m @ w / \ ƒf ƒ I O C.7 > I O 4 I E _ •Q l/) L (6 O T _0 U tUJ 4- aj a) p t U +� N `n t6 aJ a) '0 41 O NQ I C N +, _ r6 C >. +- EF O C (6 + o aJ 'a a! � L VI 0 C I C cn t O-0 O -� C C _ (6 i �' Q a! (6 L Q ++ I +•+ C6 O O +� O U VI O Q f6 N Y a) w v L E 4.1 I6 = C � +1 -0 � uj i U O +� i O U c6 E �' O l6 C S O C 7 O '0 +' r6 ca N �' C M _ O r6 Q > L O L .O aJ {n 3 c L c�6 a) O C �--I �--� O C E +� U U C O U O C .0 7 O 'U Ln U >� m � L C L •� C p C 6J U _0 D .� O > aJ > .� � C f6 n3 EO � L � }, E E >. a) U4-1 C dA a U� C E Q N Q a) +� C U O O cSJ L +� ai O in Q Q OL L C ? T, >• (6 N O C N O L L + OL Q •C C C T, L O p N C +� -0-C (6 C (6 6J Q c n Q n p C " M C .— a1 L C i a) -0 " rn C C C p aJ L �O C O C r6 C O �+ a1 > C a) L N >' 3 .c EO N C O C Y U a) a1 -0 C N O cn � Q C bA � U U U W -6 1 t6 U Ouo L > O c6 � +� a1 qj a) �O bA = 7 'O •c ai p O > a t 4, 6 a O a QV C O •n N 0 O L O O N O0 U v p + CL O U C Q p 'a (D > a) a) U 41 U C U �' U Y C .0 t * cn +�-I O C m C 4-1 OQ C a Z,, a) p -a C >O .O +E 4-1Q Ln Q + a C t 3 p C U C v E a 0 n U v n O Q `^ E v > ca r C t U o> o C C 0 4-1 -a a> o a -0 V p -0 4= � ai •a' `^ +-Q n N Q o nO a O o °+� p O o ai a, u p O L vV Ca) C � .O D U Q Q 0 a 4 O Q OL vi C O L � C } + ON U .� > -0 s h.0 O >. O +-+ +-+ ns L in a1 > m aJ W C > +1 �n •� U p O p L E aS VJ L a) c6 Q aJ C '� -0 a) E In -0 a --I -0 a) C: -0 a � >, .� _0 _0 p Z5 0 fu > Y C n3 N .— 7 oz N a) p ai a) >aj �i � .Q vp C O C+ U N r6 >' `� L C Q M i L M +� M a) +, t6 m U 'E m m O �bn a) p hA \ O a) H O D_ aJ O a1 U ai in > p a) a1 � � a1 — a) Ln v� C p L i� �O O ha aj c -0 U }' U '� hD - U [a tiA Q C E U U U O C Q tin .0 N v a) aJ f6 IV U W E .°' Q Q rl4 N c6 W C p E X wa C O • • • • • • n3 U c6 0 � w O = 0 E O N L a) ca � N aj YC G d T Ln .O N N 4.1 ° L O C: Z)O N O N> o m bCA •� u m N O) E c 0 ° C U U CU +'-Fu' i E L a) c Q C cn C O (0 �-- > O a) ai O OO m + .0 Oai LO co C ai L -0 'O a) O Q :3NL Q O O o Q �, - va, oai� a bA a C `, ai +1 Q O m C U a) 4- O �0-o C O >+— -C C 0 (a 2 ns — ai C > 4] O C N O r 4A U co �. i cu v +� + +' .O OL O U c6 Z •— .— 0) m � L O .� [o U •� n C O_ a) OL c6 Q Q r U : — Co L) (6 aj O 'E C T O �- O � (n L aJ _ > � a) QC C- hA C� -a a) N a) - v Ln Lna) O OD a) (D > cn N m L co 0 Q) L (n ° QY 0):L' a) boo o v Q o m a .� Y ° a� N C c0 dA � O - M 0 O } N O a� +, ,�_ N O U OL O vi a) a) co U C > N M O CJ O C �n u F +—T a� O bIJ ? p � a O LU •7 `� C o > a) N ° U a) U C co Q) L O x (� > _L O ro Z) O ra 6 T N >, -r-N f6 U) L co > co E O (n a)a) t +•+ O U w O -p o 0a) � O EU C a) a) 0 o E Qi :3 Ln '� '� � '' m -F- CL E � a 3 > o l..i u p t L a..i o +� '> O o -E E.E c-0 (n ami L Q) U L Q N V) i N L >l4H C °- ° L Q 7 -° ° t io t O 'E +� a) C) ro +� a) c ° Q C �) a) p a) - } i C Ln v > a) - o a) C > p O 3 ,� _p v p a) n m m o C � a) E +., C +� cn � L in �N—, °- C O U O_ 2: n5 uD°°��,� Qc v°o��-.-E�� 0 ON a) Y } `n Q ro a) r6 > a) m 4 �+ V) C Ln 4O O f0 > � >i >, 3 O a) E cn � N O O � N t p � + E E Ovi C aJ o v s w— ra L a� � �— O U'— O Q a) a) O> C C U U + () L E p +� Ca u U L �' w a) > Y C� L L U U .� Q a) N U)0 M C C c) cLo +' o f > w ? pU c M w n O' M n° M Z 4 J w CO 4. +� L U Q m O p fn O L M 0 (B C 0 T-0 roo N a) O V '� 0 ca ++ 14 N M Lt1 a) p -a°- L N MO O a) ° (B N W N C Q N L a) L N — to C O Q) E X C m a) a) 0).LI) ..2)a) � c co co U S n3 — N — 00H vnF- E V) a) L U 00 v E E O u T c 7 E E O u I w X v Q Q a O>' (n > p , ; o T 73 O Q a) N N a) c (n I L O) c N N y O a) Y >, = O w co c 73 O a) Q a) E U N p— co a) o N_ U 3 Co 7 c o n n U N 0- C: L U- (n U H m - c w ; -� 0-0 L > >, a) O "O Q �' > "O (6 L Q i � Y O cn (6 N T L a) I .0 c 71 c N �O (D � a) 0a3 m M O C 0) O ' co Om N N p U co 0-V N (6 -a (n U L C a) Q O Qp " O 0 O -r- a N !E c CN 4) > 0 O a) N E O) c A O OOm -06V C 0) C) Cc: � a) E C� E a)� ca `�' min CCc , a) (n was E P T W U � O N a) 0 O U E Q O O O E C L O N to Q O O p a3 O C 3 c a3 L u a) O 4) p ~- a) L - U O p o (n § _ a) U o C O a) >, .N N 4) c a) U) y E O Ute' n3 Q a) T C U- � a) N.O -r a) E > E v) ' o`�co-Qa) 0� 0)(0 (3) (1) CU �OY�� (YnCC a) o.0 � o > 73 � � c6 E O-0 �'E o O a) o a0i c T O L— a)u) C O � ca � c"v o�� W� 0 E E OO N CL E O O O Cl) O V C 0 � CO p C E � N� > >, a)p 0-CQ > CL NaLn O >u o U) c -F- -O 'E E � n m O E CL Q T> UJ O O > o a0TQ a a) U Ecn a% o U L U L > L L o fl L (� Q E 0 U W (Q r L L Q E - o 0 o E .� � c W-0ai m m m O 0 ( a) � E LL � o- � � >�� c O L L c0 O U (6 a) O U O U) U O p _0 W :O � Q N O a) p co CO 0 a) 4) L O to p O O a3 a5 a) 0 Q U) -0C 0 0 O N Q ca O ) Q E U L O p L O a) > o� U � -O a) -p a) c> , o U , O C O c0 E Q T p (� o O T > O T ... 6 a) p0 M L a) 3 E � O a) � cu m .O a) � Y C o (n E O E U E E c p O O— E �� 0) > 3 0 (� Vi (A U (6o L) a) E' O U O E O _� � O CD CD s+ a) > a) O i a) > >' .Q p OL o U a) Q .(n ' o .� N c -0 i as > Q c � 0 >, � T Y c a) o to - o -0 U 0 U N ns p 0 0 C Q' U a) W (5 C (n n3 E— O> 0 0 �0 •C f6 C }6 0 -0 p -0 � L � O p U > = — a) Q O1 I M 0 -0 O Z– u7 -0 p (On p (On (On c 0L U a) =_ 0 Q' W— m (n o (n 2 U (n O 0-0 (n pU) U M C .O cB ca 0 p� - . B Njcu m aa �Q N Co0��DLr– N WW�� N�C N La L >O zm M E p C W e Ca _ ca E.�Oc Oa) C ra E Ln N a) L u (a C O t 0 0 co O N ca a E E O u T C 7 E E O U W X c v Q Q a O U) �- C O -0 _0 a3 Q) c— a a m O O a) > > a O 3 t + (0 .0. -p (� U Q a L ON ca > m @ O a) O (n f6 p O O Q m a m m m c Oc .n i a > f6 N 0 Q . U _0 C Q o > ca) E:�' U O Q. U O Mn C) ' a waa —'-oEQ a3 C f6 ' n a ?j E a U) a a a c `n E L p a) O L a a a a U c Q0-0 C C O r --0=-r-.., (n o 3:c c O a c 3 �E�ton"°Daces �° p700a a F 0 0 ^- O U� rz co � b a c@ O O tpn E O a >' L -a c E -r- () fn Q O a c a 0 O? Q O L U >+ Y cD 0 0 O O 0-0 U> p L N a _6 L c U O c6 ��L M c� O� U) c6 3 j U ca a a (D L L _ c a c c� c6aaiEa� > O C)� L •� 00 a O i7mO) a O T U > U O Q— Ta,Q to a) O (6 rn co O N to a O a c a to O U0) O o a a U c U L-0_ E -p Q a O 0 O Y } }6 O O c O U O U to + O L O O 00 can C p can p c tan y c 7 >, �- m a 0-0 cac 0 m cp O p "O M W W Fn U a) a O W o .Fn -0 N 7 U .cn U to .� U U OL o E c c w c co Q a Q c a Q O a a L1 ca — a +, O Q u O O Q >• a iqj i Q O p 4J Q c 0 O -a O ca Q" 0- 0 O a 4J O +, a O a L � a a c > O E ELn 5 N a c Q E X O a O c 4J O U m Ln tv O a1 � •� cv O N E4-1 N N O N r -I c -I L U L ctt) C o E as a co co c O Q -0O O O O O = •N 7 U -0a � T ha E c c a L c p U c a .>_ c o a E trs > � a U � t +' 3 .Ln U O 0 —_ � a � T UA — a E c c6 O _ 0 .tLo c 4 A cu T w E a E > a) 0 p N E U a) O } O3 U M C U 7 N O)= Q a ca Y m C (6 M to a 3 "C .0) o LO O Q a U L c 73 -- .O O c a c 3 � O O m U a) E E O t M N a)Oo U) U O _ O to O O — Cl)to O a U a T_C a .0 cB N o0- a Q •� c cn c a c O a) Eo030�� o) u) o a� Qo QQU O) Q o > i (9 Q !n E 0 .O p a N U O Cl T) S� o (3) o can O to L0 Q- W N A)� a? 0 n O c p O X a OU W E aa�ao`na0 E LL O 0 (n WU a)a)O aa)o c 0L '` OU)-0� a a) cn Q -C O m5- a > ?�"E a U cn U O T Z co a a a .> c a c E O E U U O M Y_ o m = E' E a-ia O U U) p OU "U OU C N U CQ nE E- o � �-0 0" p "N o W O U T > w c6 a U Z3 U a Q U) m a} N N c O a W a s U) .c o00)o cnz (n0 0_M:F;4 2L6 :ECn c co Q a Q c a Q O a a L1 ca — a +, O Q u O O Q >• a iqj i Q O p 4J Q c 0 O -a O ca Q" 0- 0 O a 4J O +, a O a L � a a c > O E ELn 5 N a c Q E X O a O c 4J O U m Ln tv O a1 � •� cv O N E4-1 N N O N r -I c -I L U L ctt) C o E as a co co c O Q -0O O O O O = •N 7 U -0a � T ha E c c a L c p U c a .>_ c o a E trs > � a U � t +' 3 .Ln U O 0 —_ � a � T UA — a E c c6 O _ 0 .tLo c 4 A cu T w E a E a E E O u T C 7 E E O U W x v CL CL a o N a T o v . ai Q)E +•+ t, a +-+ > O O Y � to U to (0 •0 N L 0 a 4 •+� O U U> coo o C i •� a c Cep U - +-' N c N i Q w u 0O N_0-0 Q -0 U L N v � i t O D- (0 0 3 U o ON O L +-' O C N� to C O a i 3: c c N [o O = >— O OL N 7 `� N to UD N tao M� L' ++ � bOA N .- N f0 c Q Q a •L — �_ oLo a 4� L T N O b.D m a a O N v .+' a +� O O U U (6 (0 c a a..i c > a +-' a O O O LO a c co N E *' O O c— CL a +•+ a07 Q a i _ m m L E 'O +' Nai t O Ln a t tn Ln O N +i Lo ai •� 3 E Q c ra OLn O +1 s v 4- +, ro .� N m+ N C� o a _ a w-0 o nen m N c a +,E _0 a a Ln N C a E L <% � (6 no N ca a-0• + O O a a T O ai _ +, 0 s Q .� U +� oq L C p a N 4-1 w E Q O .� c C •a L o 0 v +' 7 Q - a Q) `n a +� > •O .� o O M + O O L a `� O Q (o a U� U Ln c6 V Q a +� O E � L a co Q 4z p O c w � +J Q N O N E O_ o a +' o N o 0 a a) N oO N +- a-'� r Ov a a ra o Q +' O O CL O Q O = z; a i U a ++ > U Ln •N p N -,F- T > 0- O m 'a m W Q (o 3 � c O0 O -� v ro (ID L U° Q a o° ° mo 3 o -a o �' °�' a '� a N °; E u i5 � +� co c m 34-1 c O-0 o 4 J E �, a v _0 O 4-� a w@ LL L C) o O •c) o N w ro c _0 @ U +� V) u N +, O a L N Z5 w ,} LL w E � •E ,} `6 *' a v +' co o a L L 4. 'E a otao O N � •E a c (J +� Ln L Qj a N +1 � ci o F, [ oA a O c a Q- c M .- NU toLo N 0 O a -0 7 E +, U +'-0 +'O c> 0 a (o -0 0 Ln U E >- + aa)L E +caa, UO +rCa � c a N a m N *6 OO 0 O U bz }ho -a L 0O } E 00 V� E SQo Z3 U. OuO O•� ai QE Ln ' M O to } C c co O a N- a N a a N-0 a O N a a O 0 0 a T ro a a..+ �..+ a U � O c a co � a � .0 EF a � .2 a a '� -a � � � N v cv a0 to � � m c/i a E O U i L —U c Ln N @ Ln U a N n U U o s v a > c iH E a O W a a i c c a +� w =� N > a O a N Z c0 vOi 7 • .� i) • a • c a • • • c rl N +�.+ O- +�.+ cr) +�.+ -W Ln c/') �~ N 4J L 6 O 3 L p aj a) 7 p i ra N O ^ Q a) L a1 Q w O [a L Q) Q) N a) L i } ? O Q L O bA ai O +� N L O O O O O a) •- Ln t E Y 3 O a) by O-6 r4 L a-+ O L ta Y� a! bA N O O +, O N .- p— U 3 n �_ -0 O O ra O a O > > ~ +,c I- - 1 Ln (6 U L U -0 al D a) Q `n bA pca a) ca O_ bb L +' 0 c Ln T O O 01 L p= c� Q Q Q U 0 Y C O C N N 'a - U a1 C a1 O v U _ E O }J + Lr) fa LD + C L -Q a•• ON +, O Ln Ln L • ai v V, U v O p LO s V a) '� p -0 Q � i �i1 bA CL +' -0 c > 3 aJ r -I o Q, T ra O} v a) L O t O ca ++ O � U a1 > L -0 � p J p ci O} V) Q cIn s O +� v ra ca O u s T co O N a) c o s s N - +� a, v ns • a) — L L Ln 7 i U - L N CDra C ca — Ln O O *' O u O E a) 3 a) .� 73 s ra U T 4E E 3 Q > a) 4�a i c M --0 CL 1 Oo[a o TE 0L i O O wt ra 4-1 0 ro N a) +1O 0 `� } 'O ca L p 3 E o E a) � O a_, 4! to N u OL c Ln ra T (6 7 .N N >4- �' 1 O N U Y L1 O O u o CL o LA c C D L E v _C + N > T E a) L E O L 0 0 O N `~ O s O Y c tea O ~ ut +� U bIJ ' i C) N O O U L C t 1 L U a; O n 41 � S Y Ln ra _� O p 7 In � •� L Y a) -- C — a--' c c a) +--� O O w � a a) a) +.� Q � L - O 4- 2 E a--� Q cu L L L N O bA �_ — to Ln '+� O Z = cz �n >` VO) i E +- O 7 o a) A v +, p p kn Q) Ia 4.1 �4-1 --+ :30M � L L LLn S � � ca � 4-1 +� S c Q v Y T V) Y Q, a) ca OU N4- ++ c-0 a) V, p U S to S— .E v H U U O cLa 4- — = V) U N N N N O O N N Lr rI N a) LL T Y U O O O E Y T � � L O O Q U Comment Submission to Planning Department February 18, 2022 Ann Welch Kitchener, On RE: purposed build 1001 King St E It is not the responsibility of the residents of Kitchener or their elected representatives to accommodate a developer's project when they knowingly purpose a project that is not within the zoning or within the true meaning of a minor adjustment to that zoning. Developers do not have us in their best interest; they are legally bound to maximize profit for their shareholders and investors. I do not say this as a negative, it is law. That is why the planning department and our elected representatives have been trusted as the gatekeepers and tasked with trying to find the balance between the current residents and developers on how the King East area will evolve. This is a new territory and we will only get one shot to get it right. Having been an observer to the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing of January 13`h 2022 "Albrecht v. Kitchener (City)" I have to question what really is the purpose of sharing our thoughts on this development as it appears to me that "the fix" is in. The city decided not to represent or defend its own planning department that spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of taxpayer's money to plan the future growth of the King Street East Neighbourhood and instead supported the decision of the volunteer committee of adjustment whose chairman is taking the city to the Ontario Land Tribunal over his own interest.' But residents aren't convinced the committee of adjustment is designed for public process. "if the city planning department says it is not minor in nature, that's it," Snyder said. "That should automatically mean it's not a committee of adjustment issue."Z The only possible way for Mr. Albrecht to have even been taken seriously at that hearing was for him and his neighbours to mortgage their homes to hire a lawyer and several experts to defend the City of Kitchener planning department's recommendations against the developer's expert, Pierre Chauvin, a planner with MHBC Planning representing Vive, who appears to know better about what should be built then the city's planning department. And if that is the case, why bother with the expense of a planning department? And now the province is adding an additional burden for residents to challenge these types of intrusions into established neighbourhoods require a $10,000 filing fee for third -party appeals to the tribuna1.3 1 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/09/20/proposed-highrise-in-downtown-kitchener- spa rks-co n trove rsy. htm I Denny Cyba[ski, the applicant behind the development, is also the volunteer chair of Kitchener's committee of adjustment, a city -appointed committee made up of volunteers who grant variances, as well as allowing changes to zoning bylaws such as building setbacks. z 10 -storey tower can move ahead on King Street block January 19`h 2022 https:Hth erecordepaper.pressreader.com/waterloo-region-record/20220119/textview Written comments against planning application: 1001 King St E Kitchener, On Page 1 Page 407 of 601 Larger builds lead to less-livable cities4 —The Record February 21, 2022 Dismantling urban design protections such as setbacks, stepbacks, and shvWowing,guidelinos terrible idea. While it may result in larger builds, it won't result in more l ' s. Design protections preserve the function, esthetics, and environmental health of cities. I we build dense, poorly designed cities, bereft of sunlight and open space, everyone who can leave, will. Those who can't leave, like houseplants in a dark corner, will suffer reduced physical and mental health. "It's up to citizens to preserve their mature neigh bourhoods"s - The Record January 21, 2022 "Other neighbours' commitment to oppose this development took nine months and thousands of dollars. We fought for the integrity of the neighbourhood, all the way to the Ontario Land Tribunal. As homeowners with pride in our distinct neighbourhood, we were treated as underdogs by the city. Can we count on the city to protect these neighbourhoods? When it bumps into policies favouring intensification, don't count on their support." Hysterical NIMBYism isn't driving opponents of Belmont Village development6 - The Record January 21, 2022 "Luxury condos are not needed in Belmont Village, but affordable family housing, rental options, and green space development would be enthusiastically welcomed. That the applicant and institutional enablers refuse to address these needs, choosing instead to ignore or misrepresent residents' legitimate objections, speaks to the tacit NIMBYism inherent in profit - driven planning. This, however, is conspicuously absent from the public discourse. Such.analysis, it would seem, is too long and complex a conversation to have." The planning department went to great effort and time to update the zoning, including massing models, wind studies, shadow studies, and application of design guidelines and community input to arrive at the current vision to grow and current zoning, only to have developers disregard the zoning and want what they want. To truly appreciate the work that the planning department did to find the correct balance between old and new I recommend that you take the time to read all 631 pages of "Planning Staff Reponses to Written and Verbal Submissions received 'Before', 'At' and'After'the Statutory Public Meeting held on December 9, 2019 to consider Official Plan Amendment OPA19/004/COK/TMW and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/ 010/COK/TMW (Neighbourhood Planning Review Project)"' Example: page 213 Staff Response In responses to the comments received at the various Open Houses with respect to the 3 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2022/02/15/provincial-task-force-report-on-housing-crisis- favours-easing-obstacles-to-development.htm1 4 https:/Iwww.therecord.com/opinion/2022/02/21/larger-builds-lead-to-less-livable-cities.htm1 5 https://therecordepaper.pressreader.com/waterloo-region-record/20220121/textview 6 https://www.therecord.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editors/2022/01/21/hysterical-nimbyism-isnt-driving- opponents-of-belmont-village-development.htmI letter to editor 7 https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN DSD -2021-92 Appendix-B.pdf Written comments against planning application: 1001 King St E Kitchener, On Page 2 Page 408 of 601 transition of medium and high-rise developments and their compatibility with adjacent low-rise residential areas, planning staff completed extensive 3D modelling. The purpose of this modelling was to determine the most appropriate combination/correlation of Floor Space Ratio (FSR) with maximum building height and to determine the most appropriate distance or setback of a medium and high-rise development from an adjacent low-rise neighbourhood. What Planning Staff were finding is that when a property had a maximum FSR and building height that did not correlate the development would meet one zoning requirement first, and put forward that they could exceed this zoning requirement because the other zoning requirement had not been met. Both FSR and Maximum Building Height were meant to work together, and this was not happening. The miscorrelation was being taken as an interpretation that one of the zoning requirements could be exceeded if the other zoning requirement had not been maxed out. For example, if the maximum FSR of a property was 4.0 and the maximum building height was 10 storeys, a proposal for a development having a FSR of 6.0 would be put forward because the maximum building height on the site was 10 storeys. The fact that the MIX -4 zone does not have a maximum building height is being put forward in the submissions, by both the development industry and the community, that this means this zone has "unlimited" height. It does not. A development's maximum building height in the MIX - 4 zone would be limited by the amount of building floor area that would be permitted by the lot area and the arrangement of this building floor area on the lot based on the MIX -4's setback requirements from lot lines, including the setbacks from low rise residential zones. No maximum building height in the MIX -4 zone does not mean unlimited height and that an FSR of 8.0, 10, or 12.0 is justified and appropriate. All the direction of this intensification is about supporting the LRT, adding up towards 10,000 new residence per year but what is not talked about is all the supporting infrastructure that is already outdated and under serious stress. Hospitals were already full before the pandemic, how and where will the city be able expand without adequate services in hospital/fire/paramedics/ambulance Regional Chair Karen Redman said the province also needs to be looking at hospitals, schools and highways to support any new growth. "We can't just build houses and not have services available that everybody expects to be there and they need to be funded by the province," Redman said. She added, "I think that you can't impose things on the community. I think that there still has to be due process, I still believe in managed growth.i8 Hospitals: Dec. 18, 2021 "At Grand River Hospital, for example, patient occupancy is regularly over 95 per cent, with some key departments, such as stroke, oncology and mental health, at beyond 100 per cent capacity, said Bonnie Camm, executive vice-president of clinical services.i9 Fire: Oct 05, 2021 "The Kitchener Fire Department (KFD) says it needs more firefighters and a new station to better handle the growing number of emergency calls they are receiving as a result of the city's growing population." "Firefighters are very expensive and we've been doing a good job of running 8 https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2022/02/15/provincial-task-force-report-on-housing-crisis- favou rs-easi ng-obstacles-to-devel opment.htm 1 9 httDs://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/12/18/omicron-inferno-poses-threat-to-alreadv- overtaxed-waterloo-region-hospital-system-officials-warn. htmI Written comments against planning application: 1001 King St E Kitchener, On Page 3 Page 409 of 601 efficiently and lean, but with the population growth and intensification, especially in the downtown, now we're finding response times and getting firefighters on the scene in a timely fashion is becoming more difficult," he said. The addition of more high-rise buildings in the city also puts a strain on resources, Gilmore said, because more firefighters are required to safely respond.10 Paramedics/Ambulance: Jan. 18, 2022 - Region of Waterloo paramedics say code red has been issued a lot more lately -- when there are no ambulances available to respond to an emergency call. In December, the region's paramedics saw 11 periods of code red." Comments on 1001 King St E purposed build: Although each project has to be addressed as "site specific" and each study the developer submits will only look at what is in place now it is really important to look at the big picture. From Vive Development's webpage: 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." 1001 King St E is pushing the envelope by purposing a 30 story tower having an 8.27FSR in the middle of a block surrounded by one and two story buildings on either side of the street and positioning the building very close to the street. During the virtual open house we were told that the shadow of the building would go half way to Weber St. One just gets the feeling that the King Street East neighbourhood is being treated like "low hanging fruit". Even though we have the infrastructure for children, both public and separate schools, the developers are only purposing to build 1 and 2 bedroom rental "units" not a place that families can call home. And these units don't come cheap ($1,400 to $1,800 per month) and being aimed at the $50K and above market. There is no green space being purposed, no additions to the city's tree canopy and outdoor amenities will be 4 stories above the street leading to a disconnect from the existing community. This is not a case of not wanting new development, we all welcome it, what is concerning is that the character of the neighbourhood will be overwhelmed by "sky towers". 10 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-fire-department-more-staff-new-station- 1.6198944 11 https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/paramedics-battle-code-red-influx-in-waterloo-region-1.5745540 12 https://vivedevelopment.com/project/king-charles-ottawa/ Written comments against planning application: 1001 King St E Kitchener, On Page 4 Page 410 of 601 1001 King St3Ostory rental tower, less than 300 meters away tothe north, 2OOttawa StNis purposing a'26 story condo tower, 400 meters to the east at 1251 King St E is purposing a 24 story rental tower (see Table A) 20Ottawa Street North 0 " 9 41 Z 160 AD 00000 00 61 meters west on King to 936 King St E there is already a 10 story building that has been approved. For soorls// 6 In 020 Ottawa S, ,2%,1936 KIng Street East o I rn,Hortons 019C) ?I, Cycle I Jut 00 01 0 MD or 90 WAO Rankofdf-twal :7 00000 in this space of a couple of blocks within a well established neighbourhood there appears to be a lack of diversity in the buildings being purposed. Based on the purposed builds known, the increase of the population in this area is now between 2,355 — 4,710 with the majority of those "rental units" ° Where are the tuwnhomea? • Where are the low rise apartment buildings? ~ Where are the stacked tovvnhomes? • Where are the mid rise condos? * Where are the semi detached houses? The demand isthere but itappears that the will isnot. Lack of Diversity in housing: Jan. 11, 2022 "Townhomes we just launched this week, for 10 units we had 1,500 people sign up showing interest," said Geoff McMurdo, chief administrative officer at Activa. By the time the list had been whittled down to serious buyers, it still had a whopping 750 names on it.13 1251 King Street E added 9 three bedroom rental townhomes and 20 Ottawa St N has included two six storey buildings with 68 dwelling units each but no information how many bedrooms these units contain orwhat the rental rates will be. o � Written comments against planning application: 1001 King St E Kitchener, On Page Page 411 of 601 Floor Space Ratio (FSR): My understanding is this ratio is to find a balance between lot size and building(s) and to prevent overbuilding. From the proposals I have seen there appears to be a push to go upmuch higher then what this area was made tobelieve. "What Planning Staff were finding isthat when aproperty had amaximum FSR and building height that did not correlate the development would meet one zoning requirement first, and put forward that they could exceed,this zoning requirement because the other zoning requirement had not been met. Both FSR and Maximum Building Height were meant to work together, and this was not happening. The miscorrelation was being taken as an interpretation that one of the zoning requirements could be exceeded if the other zoning requirement had not been maxed out. For example, if the maximum FSR of a property was 4.0 and the maximum building height was 10 storeys, a proposal for a development having a FSR of 6.0 would be put forward because the maximum building height onthe site was 1Ostoreys ,"z* We were told during the review of the King Street East Neighbourhood that this was an example of the type of development we should be expecting, one that blended and balanced with the existing properties with lots of parking, green spaces and e diversity ofhousing. Not something that overwhelmed the neighbourhood like this current proposal. ^' 0 Facilitate redevelopment ofthe mid-sized site bounded by Charles Ste Delta St and Sydney St. V. connut.fty, and Cunentk/therono"skvtoweo"intheaneoandtheremreactuoUynotthaimanymid-haebuUdin8s either but several come to mind that show excellence in their development and a balance/blend within the current neighbourhoods. The common element into blending these buildings is that they have a small street foot print but run deep, amply parking for residents and visitors, surrounded by green space and have ahuman scale. mht¢o://www.Wtchener.ca/en/resourcesGenera|/Documents/D5D PLAN D3D-2021-92 Aooendixflodf "https://xvww.khzhener.ca/en/reoourcexGenenaN]ocuments/CSD_PLAN_PARTS'Rockvvay-Preferved- Scenaho.udf Written comments against planning application: 1001 King St E Kitchener, On Page 6 Page 412 of 601 Rockway Gardens Village '1420King St. E 50 unit six -story apartment building 1522 King Street East Kitchener Eastwood Community -1414King StE 10 story condo underground parking 76 Sydney Street South Apartments KW Habilitation KW Habilitation 99 Ottawa Street South 22 Unit fronting onto Sydney St S Sk/Toxxer :|ockhumansca|e,themeisaboatendencytofiUthebui|din8kt|eovnQ|itdeifanygreen space at ground level. Instead those amenities are several stories above and people living in these towers may feel udisconnected from the community. Written comments against planning application: 1001 King St E Kitchener, On Page 7 Page 413 of 601 Table A: Approved/Purposed Builds King Street East Address Units Parking Occupancy Floor Floor Building Type Range space Space Ration Ratio Permitted Requested 1001 King St E 486 286 486-972 4 8.27 30 Story rental tower 20 Ottawa St N 464 343 464-928 1 3.00 26 story rental tower 936 King St E17 98 50 98-196 n/a n/a 10 story rental tower 1668 King St E 616 371 616-1,232 4 7.20 two 23 - storey rental towers 1251-1253 King E 332 199 341-682 5 7.15 24 storey rental tower 9 townhouses 50 Borden Ave S18 350 350-700 5 unknown contemplate a multi -tower 851 King Street E19 Unknown Unknown unknown 5 unknown unknown 1440 King St E20 Unknown Unknown unknown 4 unknown unknown Total 1249 2,355- 4,710 Parking rates: Some of the justification we are being given for the reduction of parking are: High water table — that is not our problem but a poor business decision to try to build "sky towers" on land that is not compatible Cost of building parking — again the developer knew going in what the requirements were but wants an exemption because it would affect their "profit" I gave up on trying making sense of this idea that people are going to be riding bikes everywhere, even during the winter months. Instead I think I would offer up that a great business opportunity exists for someone to purchase land and build a parking garage for all those missing a spot where they rent. 16 Page 394 #e 17 Page 385 #128 18 httas://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneraI/Documents/DSD PLAN DSD -2021-92 Aooendix- B. Pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A1830%2C%22een%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C70 %2C284%2C0%5D page 274 #512 19 page 448 #138 20 page 274 #91 Written comments against planning application: 1001 King St E Kitchener, On Page 8 Page 414 of 601 There is still a lot of land at Charles/Borden/Courtland/Kent that will come onto the market as well as the former Schneider property that will offer more than enough intensification to meet with the 160 residence per acre and support the LRT and other transit options, so why the rush to put up all these "sky towers". In summary: I would support a development that is within the current zoning restricted to the FSR4 and the building pushed back from the street to allow for some greening of the property and give it a more residential appearance. Although it is just wishful thinking, having a percentage of the units as 3 bedrooms would appeal to families as well as the "young professionals and/or downsizers"21 the developer is directing this build to and the bonus would be that less parking would be needed as there would be fewer units. People need homes, not "units" Sincerely Ann Welch Kitchener, On 21 VIVE invitation to virtual open house flyer July 21, 2021 Written comments against planning application: 1001 King St E Kitchener, On Page 9 Page 415 of 601 Page 416 of 601 SHAPING GREAT COMMUN|T|ES February 17,2O21 Facet Design Studio Ltd. 4SODutton Drive, Suite B1 Waterloo, ON N2L0H7 Attn: Steve Burrows Facet Design Studios RE: Planning and Urban Design Commentary Regarding 1001-1051 King Street East & 630-564Charles Street Official Plan Amendment OPA22/001/K/KA Dear Mr. Burrows, Background File No: 22053 Aerequested, please find enclosed our preliminary planning and urban design commentary regarding the proposed applications for an Official Plan Amendment (]PA) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) for the properties. We have reviewed the relevant application materials on the City's website and offer the following general commentary on planning and urban design matters (the latter in consultation with G8P'aurban design group) aoit affects the property at9S1King Street East. |tneeds to be stressed that this commentary is a cursory review and focused on potential implications for the development of991King Street East. The following commehtoryiebased onthe proposed development associated with the applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law, which includes the following: * One large slab tower with structured parking, ground floor commercial uses, 5live/work units along Charles Street and 48O multipleresidential dwellings (total of401dwelling units) • Structure parking to include 260 parking spaces, with surface parking providing an additional 28parking spaces Building height of 30 storeys (92 metres) with a total Floor Space Ratio of 8.27 PLANNING i URBAN DESIGN I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 7oVictoria Street South, Suite xO1.Kitchener, ON N2G*Y8 5185698883 1OuLocke Street South, Suite oVu Hamilton, ON L8p4A9 905 5727477 Page 417 of 601 Urban Design Commentary G8F'nurban design team reviewed the Site Plan, Urban Design Brief, Architectural Renderings and Shadow Study, and Wind Assessment for the proposed OPA and ZBA applications. Our commentary focuses on the application of the Tall,Building Guidelines (the "TBG") for the proposed applications and any potential implications affecting the future design and development of 991 King Street East. The below are the principal massing and form considerations of the TBG as it na|etee to potential implications for S91 King Street East. Floorplate a) The tower floorplate ielarge relative tocontemporary comparisons; per the submitted Urban Design Bhef, it isg1.b3Osquare metre tower footprint measuring generally 27 metres wide bv57metres long. This floorplate |Scontinuous for the height ofthe proposed 3D- atoney tower. The TBG characterize the proposed building as e "Large 8|ob^ owing to the combination of its tower floor area and tower proportions. The TBG generally prefer "Compact Point" towers for intensification areas, rather than "Large" tower forms. The proposed 30-ebzn*y toVvSr, however, is approximately 5596 QFeahg[ than the threshold for "Compact" and approximately D3Y6greater than the threshold for "PoiDt".The proposed development has avery large tower mass in totality. On its ovvn. the characterization as a Large Slab to this extent does not neoaooahk/ determine appropriateness but, rather, it influences some of the other considerations (and calculations) of physical fit and form, including physical separation, overlook and microclimatic impacts. The TBG does not preclude "Large" tower forms but sets high design expectations for massing and form to accommodate such buildings: "Large Point Towers and Large Slabs must demonstrate significant design measures to reduce the visual impact 0fbhHir8n8Gs". Separation b) The TBG suggests physical separation distance between tower forms to property lines as function of the relationship between g building's height and length. Per the submitted Urban Design Brief, the TBG suggests o2M.27metre physical separation hothe property line shared with 991 King Street East owing to the proposed 30 -storey tower's length and height. The proposed tower |eset back only 10 metres from its own property line with the remaining approximately 16 metres ofthe suggested physical separation extending onto SS1 King Street East. This puts over 60% of the suggested physical separation onus onto the abutting property at 991 King Street, an overburdening which the TBG specifically seeks to avoid with the physical separation guidance. Further, this 16 -metre extension onto 991King Street East isinaddition to any physical separation distance required for future redevelopment of 991 King Street East that vvoV|d need to be accommodated on 991 King Street East. For instance, the TBG suggests for a 15 -storey building with on 875 equona metre (25 metres by 35 nuetnee) floorplate a physical separation distance in the order of8.5 nnotrao. This naou|te in a suggested total tower setback on 891 King Street East /n the order of 25 metres to the shared property line with the subject DPA and ZBA property (where required to include the off-site 16 metre getbach), neGu|UDg in 8 gg[hech of approximately half the depth ofSS1 King Street East from Borden Avenue. For comparison purposes, amid -rise 8 -storey building with a 1.125 square metre floorplate (28 metres by 40 metres) situated along GSPGroup 12 Page 418Of601 Charles Street more fully using the area of 991 King Street East would require ecumulative physical separation of2Ometres, which could not bgachieved given the proposed 30 -storey tower c) Overlook The TBG suggests amaximum ovedook(ormmdop)between tower forms related to the extent of suggested physical separation: a greater physical separation distance results in o lower maximum overlap between towers. The Urban Design Brief notes a maximum overlap of 30% owing tothe suggested separation distance greater than 14metres for the proposed 3O-atonay tower. The placement and mman of the proposed 30-otoney hower, howover, virtually guarantees 8full overlap between itself and any proposed taller building onS91 King Street East and/or the property assembly at the corner of King and Borden. The TBG instructs that design mitigations should be employed vvhena suggested overlook is not ochieved, such as greater physical separation, mitigative massing and thoughtful balcony placements. Such measures have not been employed for the proposed 30 -storey tower as it rises consistently in shape and form through its d) Placement The placement of the tower mass aligned with and closer towestern property line shared with 991 King Street East appears on its face to be phmjmdb driven by the location of the "memory tower" situated mid -site on the hjnQ Street hnntooa. This is o "commemoration" of the existing heritage bui|ding, involving demolition and recreation the vertical element in the monne location. Regardless of the merits and rationale for positioning this recreated vertical element in aitu, it should not excuse the proposed 30-etorey tower's design from the bm|anoe.of the TBG outlined above and below. Shadow eA The proposed 30 -storey tower mass casts wide shadows onto 881King Street East for most of the morning hourly periods through different seasons. When SS1 King Street East iedeveloped, the core developable portion ofSS1 King Street East along Charles Street sunlight will belimited on any proposed "eastern" -facing elevations and rooftop terraces. In the morning, these elevations and areas will be largely shaded by the proposed 3O-mbzreytower mass and in the afternoon periods shaded byitself. This (8a consideration that should be taken together with the above commentary regarding building separation and overlook, D Wind The provided Wind Assessment kaoqualitative assessment ofanticipated wind conditions post - development of the p tower, as compared to a quantitative desktop or wind tunnel assessment. This provides expectations for wind conditions but not predictions based on modelling. Given this, it is not possible to conclusively identify wind impacts on and surrounding 891 King Street EoaL Based onthe above related to the TBG, the proposed tower height and massing presents constraints tothe flexibility ofdevelopment options for 991 King Street East onon Page 419 of 601 of King and Borden. Recognizing the TBG are meant as oflexible design guideline tool to shape tall bUi|dings, and are not meant as rigid ragulatione, the design of the proposed 30 -tower does not incorporate the mitigative design measures (placement, massing, or shape) contemplated by the TBG tocounter the very large mass ofthe proposed 3O-otoneytower. Summary We trust the above and enclosed satisfies your needs atthis time for providing input into the proposed applications for the captioned properties. Sincerely, GSP Group Inc. Kristen Bahsde|e.W1C|P Associate, Senior Planner GSPGroup 14 Page 420Of601 Staff Report l IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: April 24, 2023 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 9 DATE OF REPORT: March 27, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-145 SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA22/008/M/CD Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/015/M/CD 455-509 Mill Street Polocorp Inc. RECOMMENDATION: That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA/22/008/M/CD for Polocorp Inc. requesting a change in land use designation from `General Industrial Employment' to `Mixed Use with Site Specific Policy Area No. 62' to permit a high intensity mixed use dwelling development on the lands specified and illustrated on Schedule `A' and Schedule `B', be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -2023-145 as Appendix `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/015/M/CD for Polocorp Inc. be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-laws', and `Map No. 1', attached to Report DSD -2023- 145 as Appendix `B'; and further That the Urban Design Brief dated February 2023 and attached to Report DSD -2023-145 as Appendix `C', be adopted, and that staff be directed to apply the Urban Design Brief through the Site Plan Approval process. 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 subject lands located at 455, 459, 469, 473, 477, 481, 485, and 509 Mill Street. It is planning staffs recommendation that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be approved. The proposed Amendments support the development of mixed use, high density, complete community in a Major Transit Station Area. Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice letter to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site; o installation two large billboard notice signs on the properties; *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 421 of 601 o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; o Neighbourhood Meeting held on January 24, 2023; o postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject site, those who responded to the preliminary circulation; and those who attended the Neighbourhood Meetings; o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on March 31, 2023. This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The property owner of the subject lands addressed as 455, 459, 469, 473, 477, 481, 485, and 509 Mill Street is proposing to change the Official Plan designation from `General Industrial Employment' to `Mixed Use with Site Specific Policy Area No. 62' in the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and to change the zoning from `General Industrial Zone (M-2)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `Mixed Use Three (MIX -3) with Site Specific Provision (362) and Holding Provision 43H' in Zoning By-law 2019-051 to regulate the minimum commercial area, increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) , increase the building height, regulate building setbacks, regulate the minimum parking rate and to apply a Holding Provision to require remediation of site contamination and an updated noise study to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Staff are recommending that the applications be approved. BACKGROUND: Polocorp 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 455 to 509 Mill Street to permit the lands to be developed with a high intensity mixed use development. The proposed development includes 5 high rise, mixed use buildings, ranging in height from 15 to 44 storeys with 1,500 residential units and 2,000 square metres of commercial space. The proposed development includes 1,141 vehicle parking spaces proposed to be located underground, internal to the buildings and on the surface. 1,150 bicycle parking spaces are proposed within the development including 1100 Class A indoor bicycle stalls and 50 Class B outdoor parking stalls. The lands are designated `General Industrial Employment' in the 2014 City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned `General Industrial Zone (M-2)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The existing zoning permissions permit a wide range of industrial uses such a warehousing, manufacturing, wholesaling, transportation depot, truck and transport terminal and other similar industrial uses. Site Context The subject lands are addressed as 455, 459, 469, 473, 477, 481, 485, and 509 Mill Street are located near the intersection of Ottawa Street South and Mill Street. The consolidated subject properties form a triangular shape parcel of land and have a combined lot area of 2.17 hectares (5.36 acres) with approximately 195 metres of frontage along Mill Street. Six of the eight properties, 455, 459, 469, 473, 477, and 481 Mill Street are developed with single detached dwellings while 485 and 509 Mill Street are developed with industrial and manufacturing buildings. Two of the six single detached dwellings are vacant while four of the six single detached dwellings are currently rented to tenants at market rate. The owner has arranged for relocation to new market rate units for the tenants and will be assisting and supporting in the relocation. The surrounding neighbourhood consists of a variety of uses including commercial buildings, industrial buildings, medium -rise residential uses, single detached dwellings, low-rise multiple dwelling buildings, and institutional buildings. Directly across the street to the north of the property along Mill Street are existing residential and industrial buildings. Abutting the subject lands directly to the west are vacant lands owned by the Region of Waterloo. Lands to the east of the subject properties are developed with industrial uses and directly to the south, abutting the subject lands is Page 422 of 601 the Mill Station ION stop. Existing bus routes operate along Ottawa Street and there are walking, and bike trails and bike lanes located nearby. 01� 'V" ,N��y Figure 1 - 455, 459, 469, 473, 477, 481, 485, and 509 Mill Street. REPORT: The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with 5 high-rise, mixed-use buildings, ranging in height from 15 to 44 storeys with1,500 residential units and 2,000 square metres of commercial floor space. The proposed development includes 1,141 vehicle parking spaces proposed to be located underground, internal to the buildings and on the surface. 1,150 bicycle parking spaces are proposed within the development including 1,100 Class A indoor bicycle stalls and 50 Class B outdoor parking stalls. Considerable thought for the orientation and placement of the buildings, podium heights, building step backs, pedestrian and vehicular connections have been incorporated into the design for this proposed high intensity mixed use development. The proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications were originally submitted in August 2022. Since this time there has been significant changes to the proposed development in direct response to public and staff comments. These changes include but are not limited to the reduction of the number of towers from six (6) towers to five (5) towers, an increase to the maximum building height and Floor Space Ratio and, an increase to the overall landscaped and amenity area. 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 423 of 601 Table 1. Development Concept Comparison Table Page 424 of 601 Original Development Concept Revised Development Concept Number of Towers 6 towers, situated on top of 5 5 situated on top of 4 podiums podiums Number of Units 1,500 residential units 1,500 residential units Unit Types 1 bedroom units 1 bedroom units 2 bedroom units 2 bedroom units 3 bedroom units 3 bedroom units Affordable Dwelling 50 50 Units Parking Spaces 926 parking spaces 1,141 parking spaces Building Heights 11 storey point tower 15 storey compact slab 14 storey point tower 21 storey compact slab 21 storey compact slab 32 storey point tower 27 storey point tower 40 storey point tower 29 storey point tower 44 storey point tower 32 storey point tower Floor Space Ratio 7.0 8.5 Complies with Tall No Yes Building Guidelines Landscaped Area 7,072 square metres 8,924 square metres Page 424 of 601 7„?I�.. ........._....._......... _........ .......... ,............ ........... _......................... .......�............... ...... ...,.......� "'.. _ .._...._.....� ii ,moi o r Nii / bwWn� � ✓ // ��d a x7 xx ry r e Ir x„ J Figure 2 — Original Development Concept Site Plan --------. AL BUILDING BUILDING D BUILDING n BUILDING F BUILDING B/ BUILDING C Figure 3 — Revised Development Concept Site Plan Page 425 of 601 POWER r TOWER D Figure 4 — Original Development Rendering Figure 5 — Revised Development Rendering The revised development concept includes changes in direct response to public and staff comments. The revised proposed development includes a redesign of the site to include 5 towers, rather than 6, 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 did not fully comply with overlook requirements between towers. The revised Page 426 of 601 development concept has addressed both aspects of the guidelines and complies with the Design for Tall Building Guidelines in the City's Urban Design Manual. In addition to meeting the Design for Tall Building Guidelines, 5, 6 and 8 storey podiums are provided which are well defined and enhance the streetscape along Mill Street and the internal street within the site. Massing has been broken up on the towers with building step backs which helps address shadow impacts and enhances the public realm. While the number of towers has reduced from six towers to five towers, the number of residential units has not changed (1,500 units). The floor space ratio has increased from 7.0 to 8.5 which is a result of additional on-site parking being provided internal to the building, in an above ground structure. The number of on-site parking has increased from 926 parking spaces to 1,141 parking spaces. The landscape area has increased from 7,072 square metres to 8,924 square metres. 1,100 Class A indoor bicycle stalls and 50 Class B outdoor parking stalls are provided and required by the proposed zoning. 20% of the required parking will be dedicated to Electric Vehicle (EV) ready parking spaces. Furthermore, the proposed development integrates several features that will benefit the community including public amenity areas, affordable housing, a community center space and improved accessed to the Mill Station ION stop. To facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands with the proposed mixed use 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. The lands are currently designated `General Industrial Employment' in the 2014 City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned `General Industrial Zone (M-2)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The owner is proposing to change the land use designation to `Mixed Use with Site Specific Policy Area No. 62' in the City of Kitchener Official Plan to allow for a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.5, and to change the zoning from `General Industrial Zone (M-2)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `Mixed Use Three (MIX -3) with Site Specific Provision (362) and Holding Provision 43H' in Zoning By-law 2019-051 to regulate the minimum commercial area, increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR), increase the building height, regulate building setbacks, and to regulate the minimum parking rate. 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 Page 427 of 601 (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, 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, and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable, healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus, rapid transit, and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed mixed use 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 high intensity mixed-use development that is compatible with the surrounding community, helps manage growth, will contribute towards a complete community, 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. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; Page 428 of 601 b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. Policy 2.2.4 requires that planning be prioritized for MTSAs on priority transit corridors, including zoning in a manner that implements the policies of the Growth Plan. MTSAs on priority transit corridors will be planned for a minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail transit or bus rapid transit. The Region of Waterloo's ION is a form of light rail transit and the ION stations are Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) that are required to achieve the minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area, and within a Major Transit Station Area. The lands are identified as a MTSA in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA boundary for the Mill station. The Region of Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review project and as part of that work, revised MTSA boundaries were approved in August 2022 and these lands are within the Mill Station MTSA as the Mill Station ION stop abuts the subject lands directly at the rear of the properties. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City achieve density targets in the MTSA. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. 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 subject lands are within the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) boundary that was endorsed by Regional Council in April 2021 (and approved in August 2022). The Region of Waterloo has also identified that the subject lands are located within potential intensification corridor as part of the Page 429 of 601 Reginal Official Plan review and are an appropriate location for intensification. The Region of Waterloo have indicated they have no objections to the proposed application or to higher density within the MTSA area. (Appendix 'D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community. The subject lands are designated `General Industrial Employment in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Lands designated as General Industrial Employment provide for a broad range of industrial uses such a warehousing, manufacturing, wholesaling, transportation depot, truck and transport terminal and other similar industrial uses. The applicant is proposing to change the land use designation to `Mixed Use' and to add `Site Specific Policy Area No. 62' to the subject lands. The Mixed Use land use designation plays an important role in achieving the planned function of the MTSA intensification area. Lands designated Mixed Use have the capacity to accommodate additional density and intensification of uses. Development and redevelopment of lands within lands designated Mixed Use must implement a high standard of urban design. The applicant is proposing to add a Site Specific Policy Area No. 62 to the subject lands to allow for a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.5 whereas the Mixed Use policies only permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 4.0. Policy 17.E.13.1. of the City of Kitchener Official Plan require that holding provisions will be applied in situations where it is necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to implement this Plan to ensure that certain conditions, studies or requirements related to a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment are met. Complete Community A complete community creates and provides access to a mix of land uses including, a full range and mix of housing, including affordable housing, recreation, commerce, community and cultural facilities, health care facilities, employment, parks and open spaces distributed and connected in a coherent and efficient manner. A complete community also supports the use of public transit and active transportation, enabling residents to meet most of their daily needs within a short distance of their homes. Kitchener will be planned as a complete community that creates opportunities for all people to live, work and interact within close proximity. Planning for a complete community will aid in reducing the cost of infrastructure and servicing, encourage the use of public transit and active modes of transportation, promote social interaction, and foster a sense of community. The applicant is proposing to contribute aspects of a complete community on the subject lands with five high-rise, mixed-use buildings, ranging in height from 15 to 44 storeys with1,500 residential units and 2,000 square metres of commercial space. Considerable thought for the orientation and placement of the buildings, podium heights, building step backs, and improved pedestrian connection the Mill Station stop have been incorporated into the design for this high intensity mixed use development. Furthermore, the proposed development integrates a number of features that will benefit the community and foster a sense of community, including public amenity areas, affordable housing and Page 430 of 601 a community centre space. The proposed development includes public amenity areas in the form of Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS). 4,400 square metres of programmed public space are proposed for this mixed used development. Preliminary concepts have contemplated features such as public art, a fountain, a skating rink, landscaping and seating opportunities. A publicly accessible urban plaza is with seamless integration to the station platform is proposed which will significantly improved pedestrian access to the station platform. The owner is proposing a total of 50 affordable residential rental dwelling units within the proposed mixed use development. The units will be available for rent and managed by the Owner in partnership with a community partner. Dwellings will range in size and location within the proposed development, in each tower and on different floors. The Owner is proposing to dedicate approximately 186 square metres (2,000 square feet of space) within the proposed development to be utilized as a privately owned, publicly accessible community centre. The proposed space will be available for the public to utilize for meetings, events or other community uses. the owner is also proposing a commitment of $25,000 per year for 10 years (total of $250,000) to sponsor new community events and programs that directly benefit the residents within the community. Staff will review this proposal to determine its feasibility as part of the site plan review process. Parkland The Proposed Development includes a combination of privately -owned publicly accessible open spaces (POPS) to meet the needs of residents and the surrounding community. This includes the Station urban plaza, Promenade, and park/playground area. Additional private amenity spaces will be provided for residents of the proposed development on the building rooftops and indoor amenity spaces. Further to these spaces, a new public park is proposed on the lands at 455 Mill Street with the potential to incorporate the Regional owned lands at the corner of Mill Street and Ottawa Street South, should the acquisition of the required lands be feasible. This new park could provide a gateway feature for the Site and Mill ION LRT station. Parkland dedication in a combination of land and cash -in -lieu will be taken through the site plan application process. Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Major Transit Station Areas, Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within a Major Transit Station Area. The planned function of the Major Transit Station Areas is to provide densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit -oriented. Policies also require that development applications in Major Transit Station Areas give consideration to the Transit -Oriented Development policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the Official Plan. Generally, the Transit -Oriented Development policies support a compact urban form, that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience. These policies also support developments which foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit and future rapid Page 431 of 601 transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities. The proposed development is located in a prime location for high intensity mixed use development. The subject lands are located directly adjacent to the Mill Station ION stop. The proposed development introduces a new form of housing to the surrounding area with a mix of unit types. Housing diversity is needed to provide a greater housing choice and meet the needs of increasingly diverse residents and household types such as young families, professionals, retirees, people with disabilities, all with a various range of income. Diverse housing types for this area of the City of Kitchener will be planned through future MTSA planning work. This application is in advance of that work and can be considered based on urban structure and future planned function of the community. As such, staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that not only complies with the City's policies for a Major Transit Station Area but also contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally - friendly city. PARTS Rockway Plan The subject lands are located within the PARTS Rockway Plan which is a guiding document that made recommendations for land uses within and around rapid transit station stops. The PARTS Rockway Plan made recommendation for amendments to the Secondary Plans within the MTSA, which have not yet been implemented. Some of the primary recommendations are to encourage the development of underutilized sites with higher density live -work environments and to increase housing supply with multi -unit residential while protecting existing stable neighbourhoods. The proposed development provides for a range of housing options and commercial space and the proposed amendment is in keeping with the PARTS Rockway vision for development within and around the ION stops. Figure 5: PARTS Rockway Land Use Plan Page 432 of 601 w Study Ana SmAndary FOCUS Area Oarµ MAry �� tl "/////////, 0Ji//,/ I N Utl0e& S'A.ops NrgMwaal-NkeeNNV hDen%it N Mi Wed-UselhdMedirLurttSlden9fty- d Mlk4ad"'Udi liU L64X7 0 a'YI 0t,y nclial '( i y* l Iumna vAflon Employment CenGeared Employment Established Low -Rise lit@Odenflal! �wllHy� lg;,,�'r,fa:�'�✓Yw„�er� ' o.r Low Rise, RealdbMAW Medannw Rlae Residential 1' esidenfia8 �I o parka �fid ":' Open Space ' ule ta Nattuunal lRadttapConaemarattion N p LSTO '9Wrn ,rnrrane P'o4cy Aida dl"IlasudplsW Gvola'n � moll Uf l mar ph4aip.,iuretlr+e u/r. +"••, Sae'Sperav69lic Pchcy,Amas PARTS Rockway Plan- Land Use Plan Figure 5: PARTS Rockway Land Use Plan Page 432 of 601 Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) The subject lands are within the draft Rockway Secondary Plan, updated as part of the Neighbourhood Planning Reviews (NPR) project. A statutory public meeting was held December 9, 2019 regarding draft amendments to the plan. Under the proposed changes, the proposed land use for the subject lands is Mixed Use which allows for high intensity mixed use developments. oq*way Secondary PHao - Proposed La od USO Figure 6: NPR Rockway Secondary Plan - Proposed Land Use Plan As part of the NPR project, the subject lands are proposed to be zoned MIX -4 (High Rise Mixed Use Four Zone). The proposed MIX -4 zone, which is new zone proposed through the NPR, implements the mixed use land use designation and allows for high rise mixed use buildings with no maximum building height and permits a floor space ratio of up to 5.0. Figure 7: NPR Rockway Secondary Plan - Proposed Zoning Page 433 of 601 Propa&aA, Land ulo E..aNdh Rise Rtw.Werdkal IV ISI"rit r'l s f% IMcYdium Riso RO'skjprlOol Mwed Use MWAIIlIridUshI lu Open spaco 9al&ot!IrW��enrvlom a0 o%odj Sqxondary Meru ao4Aindary I� i,Sp"Ific Pofty Ama oq*way Secondary PHao - Proposed La od USO Figure 6: NPR Rockway Secondary Plan - Proposed Land Use Plan As part of the NPR project, the subject lands are proposed to be zoned MIX -4 (High Rise Mixed Use Four Zone). The proposed MIX -4 zone, which is new zone proposed through the NPR, implements the mixed use land use designation and allows for high rise mixed use buildings with no maximum building height and permits a floor space ratio of up to 5.0. Figure 7: NPR Rockway Secondary Plan - Proposed Zoning Page 433 of 601 The proposed Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the lands Mixed Use with the Site -Specific Policy Area No. 62, and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to zone the lands `Mix -3' zone with Site Specific Provision (362), aligns with the high intensity mixed use vision for the subject lands than that is proposed through the NPR project. The NPR project is under review and updated draft land use designations and zoning will be considered in through future MTSA planning in 2023 as part of the Growing Together project. Urban Design Policies: 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, attached as Appendix `C', 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 — All Street frontages are activated by at -grade commercial units, with a combined 2,000 square metres of commercial space proposed along Mill Street and the internal the private road. Furthermore, all buildings' principal entrances and lobbies are located at grade with direct access to public sidewalks and the Mill Station ION stop. The five 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 five towers have well defined podiums and building step backs which helps enhance the public realm. Tower Desiqn Building A (31 storeys) Building B (44 storeys) Building C (40 storeys) and Building D (15 storeys) are classified as a "Compact Point" towers. All four (4) buildings have well defined podiums. Building D (15 storeys) includes a 5 -storey podium situated along Mill Street with building step backs. This provides a transition to the lower density areas. Buildings A, B and C are the tallest buildings and are all situated towards the rear of the site and situated on top of 8 -storey podiums with various building step backs. The massing of all the buildings is broken up vertically by variation and the articulation of building materials Building E is 21 storeys in height and is classified as a "Large Slab" as the proposed tower floor plate is more than 850 square metres in area. This building has been oriented towards Mill Street with a 6 storey podium with various building step backs as the tower get taller. 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. Page 434 of 601 Shadow Impact Stud 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 will require wind mitigation design features. A full Wind Assessment will be required and reviewed through the site plan application process. Tall Buildina 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 (as revised) now meets the onsite and offsite separation distance requirements of the Design for Tall Building Guidelines. Staff recommends that the proposed Urban Design Brief, attached as Appendix `C', be adopted and that staff be directed to apply the Urban Design Brief through the Site Plan Approval process. 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 directly adjacent to the Mill ION station stop. The building has excellent access to cycling networks, including existing on and off-street cycling facilities and is located in close proximity to the Iron Horse Trail. The location of the subject lands, in the context of the City's integrated transportation system, supports the proposal for transit - oriented development on the subject lands. Policy 3.C.2.22 states that until such time as Station Area Plans are completed and this Plan is amended accordingly, in the interim, any development application submitted within a Major Transit Station Area will be reviewed generally in accordance with the Transit -Oriented Development Policies included in Section 13.C.3.12 Page 435 of 601 The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications support a more - dense residential development. The location of the proposed buildings, secured through the proposed site-specific provisions, will result in a compatible 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. Furthermore, the proposed development will enhance access and pedestrian connections to the Mill Station ION stop. At future site plan approval processes, the design of the buildings will have to feature a high quality public realm to enhance the identity of the area and create gathering points for social interaction, community events and other activities. Additionally, secured and visitor bicycle parking is required as part of the Zoning By-law. Housina Policies: Section 4. 1.1 of the City's Official Plan contains policies with the primary objective to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed development increases the range of dwelling units available in the city. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types including, one, two and three-bedroom units along with 50 affordable dwelling units that will be made available for rent by the owner. The wide range of units, in this location, will 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 explored at the Site Plan Application stage. Proposed Official Plan Amendment Conclusions The subject application requests that the land use designation as shown on Map 3 of the 2014 Official Plan be changed from `General Industrial Employment' to `Mixed Use' and that Map 5 be amended to add Site Specific Policy Area No. 62. Based on the above policy and planning analysis, staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents good planning and recommend that the proposed Official Plan Amendment be approved in the form shown in Appendix «A„ Page 436 of 601 Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are zoned `General Industrial Zone (M-2)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The existing zoning permissions permit a wide range of industrial uses such a warehousing, manufacturing, wholesaling, transportation depot, truck and transport terminal and other similar industrial uses. The applicant has requested an amendment to remove the lands, currently zoned `General Industrial Zone (M-2)', from Zoning By-law 85-1 and zone the lands to `Mixed Use Three (MIX -3) with Site Specific Provision (362) and Holding Provision 43H' in for inclusion in Zoning By-law 2019-051. 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 also seeking to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051 to add Site -Specific Provision (362) and Holding Provision 43H. The proposed Site -Specific Provision will permit an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR), impose a maximum building height, regulate parking requirements, regulate building setbacks, impose a maximum podium height, regulate the minimum required commercial space and prohibit geothermal wells. The Holding Provision will require remediation of site contamination and require a noise study to be completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Staff offer the following comments with respect to Site Specific Provision (362): a) That the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 8.5 and shall be calculated pre -road widening and pre -conveyance of park land. 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) The maximum building height shall be 145.0 metres. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure development does not exceed the height represented in the concept plans. Furthermore, this is the maximum allowable height within the Federal Airport Zoning Regulations which caps the maximum building height within a flight path. c) The maximum number of storeys shall be 44. The purpose of this regulation is to cap the number of storeys ensure development does not exceed the number of storeys shown in the concept plans. d) That parking be provided at a rate of 0.55 parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.05 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit. The purpose of this regulation is to provide for a parking rate which is appropriate for the development. The proposed ratio results in a parking rate of 0.6 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. Zoning By-law 2019-051 permits visitor parking and non-residential use parking to be shared. Page 437 of 601 e) The minimum rear yard building podium setback shall be 0 metres. This regulation will permit podiums to be built right up to the rear property line. f) The minimum rear yard building tower setback shall be 2.5 metres. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure there a tower step back provided at the rear of the property that abuts the Mill Station ION stop. g) the minimum interior side yard building setback shall be 2.9 metres and regulated pre - parkland conveyance. The regulation will regulate the side yard building setbacks and provide for a landscape buffer. h) The minimum ground floor street line fagade width as a percent of the width of the abutting street line shall be 25%. This regulation will ensure 25% of the ground floor facades are oriented along the street. In addition to 25% fagade width along the street line, landscape areas are proposed. i) The maximum number of storeys in the base of a mid -rise building or tall building shall be 8. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure a well-defined podium base is provided that implements the concept plans shown for the proposed development. j) The minimum non residential gross floor area shall be 2,000 square metres. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure adequate commercial space is provided for the proposed mixed use development. k) 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 43H: Official Plan policies require that holding provisions will be applied in those situations where it is necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to facilitate the implementation of the `MIX -3' zone and site specific provision. The City will enact a by-law to remove the holding symbol when all the conditions set out in the holding provision have been satisfied, permitting development or redevelopment in accordance with the zoning category assigned. Holding Provision 43H Planning staff are recommending the following holding provision as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment: a) 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 Page 438 of 601 (MECP). This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to their satisfaction. b) No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a 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 are medium and high environmental contamination threats located on and adjacent to the subject lands in accordance with the Region's Threats Inventory Database (TID) due to past and current land uses. A Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines. Until such time that the RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have been received by the Region, residential redevelopment of the site is not permitted. A noise study was prepared in support of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments 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 updated 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 `Mixed Use Three (MIX -3) with Site -Specific Provision (362) and Holding Provision 43H' represents good planning as it will facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a mixed-use development that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood and surrounding area, which will add visual interest at the street level, provide enhanced landscaping that will contribute to the streetscape, and which will appropriately accommodate on-site parking needs. Staff are supportive of the proposed development and recommend that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Appendix "B". Department and Agency Comments: Circulation of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment was undertaken in August 2022 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 "D" of this report. The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: Planning Justification Report Prepared by: The Butler Group Consultants Inc., February 2023 Urban Design Brief Prepared by: Michael Spaziani Architecture Inc., February 2023 Traffic Impact Study and Parking Justification Report. Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions, July 2022 (Addendum Letter February 2023) Elevations and Massing and Shadow Study Prepared by: Neo Architects, February 2023 Page 439 of 601 Landscape Master Plan Prepared by: Land Art Design Landscape Architects, February 2023 Geotechnical and Hydrological Investigation. Prepared by: Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering LTD, February 17, 2023 Functional Servicing and Storm Water Management Report Prepared by: JPE Engineering, February 13, 2023 Noise and Vibrational Impact Study HGC Engineering, July 13, 2022 (Addendum Letter February 2023) Pedestrian Windy Assessment Prepared by: RWDI., February 2023 Community Input & Staff Responses Ir 386 addresses (occupants and property owners) were circulated and notified a �NNNN�1�i�� Approximately 16 people/households/businesses provided comment A City -led Neighbourhood Meeting was held on January 24, 2023 and 13 � fkttbiDl�.�' �) different users logged on Staff received written responses from 16 residents with respect to the proposed development. These are included in Appendix `E'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on January 24, 2023. In addition, staff had follow-up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. What We Heard Staff Comment Support for the development There is support for the redevelopment of the underutilized properties. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was submitted, and it was reviewed by City Transportation Services staff and the Concerns the proposed Region of Waterloo. No concerns with the TIS were development will create more traffic identified by either Regional of City Staff. This is a transit - on local street. oriented development with more bicycle parking being offer than vehicular parking. Page 440 of 601 Concerns that there are no bike Bike lanes were recently constructed along Ottawa Street lanes in the area for this South and a multi use trail was recently constructed along development. Mill Street directly in front of this proposed development. In direct response from public and staff comments, the number of towers was reduced from 6 to 5 which reduced Tall buildings should only be allowed shadow impacts. A Shadow Study has been submitted. in the downtown and too many Staff have reviewed the study and are satisfied the shadow towers are proposed. study meets the minimum requirements, as related to shadow impacts and will have minimal impacts on adjacent properties. A mix of unit types should be 1 , 2 and 3 bedroom units are now proposed along with 50 provided, including some affordable affordable dwelling units. units. Additional onsite parking was added to the revised development concept. A Parking Justification opinion letter was submitted and reviewed by Transportation Services staff who support the proposed parking rate of 0.55 per parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.05 visitor parking Not enough parking is being spaces per dwelling unit. The proposed development provided. includes unbundled parking, is located directly adjacent to the Mill Station ION stop and furthermore a minimum of 0.5 Class A bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit are required by the Zoning By-law as an active transportation measure. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to allow the subject lands at 455-509 Mill Street to be developed with a high intensity mixed use development. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. It is recommended that the applications be approved. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. A large notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in August of 2022. Following the initial Page 441 of 601 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 March 31, 2023 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix F). 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 August 24, 2022. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 16 members of the public, which were summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Region of Waterloo Official Plan • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • PARTS Rockway Plan • City of Kitchener Zoning By-laws 85-1 and 2019-051 REVIEWED BY: Malone -Wright, Tina — Interim Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment `A' — Proposed Official Plan Amendment Attachment `B' — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment `C' — Urban Design Brief Attachment `D' — Department and Agency Comments Attachment `E' — Public Comments Attachment `F' — Newspaper Notice Page 442 of 601 AMENDMENT NO. xx TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 455-509 Mill Street Page 443 of 601 AMENDMENT NO. xx TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 455-509 Mill Street irvnFx 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 April 24, 2023 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council Page 444 of 601 AMENDMENT NO. xx TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. xx to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener (2014). 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 3 -Land Use by redesignating lands from General Industrial Employment to Mixed Use. • Map 5 - To add Specific Policy Area No. 62 to add the lands at 455-509 Mill Street. • Adding Policy 15.D.12.62 to Section 15.D.12 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 8.5: o Specific Policy 15.D.12.62 amends one policy in the Mixed Use land use designation: ■ Policy 15.D.4.17 c) is amended to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.5. 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, 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, and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable, healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as Page 445 of 601 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 mixed use 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 high intensity mixed-use development that is compatible with the surrounding community, helps manage growth, will contribute towards a complete community, 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. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; 4 Page 446 of 601 e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. Policy 2.2.4 requires that planning be prioritized for MTSAs on priority transit corridors, including zoning in a manner that implements the policies of the Growth Plan. MTSAs on priority transit corridors will be planned for a minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail transit or bus rapid transit. The Region of Waterloo's ION is a form of light rail transit and the ION stations are Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) that are required to achieve the minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area, and within a Major Transit Station Area. The lands are identified as a MTSA in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA boundary for the Mill station. The Region of Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review project and as part of that work, revised MTSA boundaries were approved in August 2022 and these lands are within the Mill Station MTSA as the Mill Station ION stop abuts the subject lands directly at the rear of the properties. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City achieve density targets in the MTSA. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. 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 subject lands are within the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) boundary that was endorsed by Regional Council in April 2021 (and approved in August 2022). The Region of Waterloo has also identified that the subject lands are located within potential intensification corridor as part of the Reginal Official Plan review and are an appropriate location for intensification. The Region of Waterloo have indicated they have no objections to the proposed application or to higher density within the MTSA area. (Appendix `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which Page 447 of 601 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 'General Industrial Employment in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Lands designated as General Industrial Employment provide for a broad range of industrial uses such a warehousing, manufacturing, wholesaling, transportation depot, truck and transport terminal and other similar industrial uses. The applicant is proposing to change the land use designation to 'Mixed Use' and to add 'Site Specific Policy Area No. 62' to the subject lands. The Mixed Use land use designation plays an important role in achieving the planned function of the MTSA intensification area. Lands designated Mixed Use have the capacity to accommodate additional density and intensification of uses. Development and redevelopment of lands within lands designated Mixed Use must implement a high standard of urban design. The applicant is proposing to add a Site Specific Policy Area No. 62 to the subject lands to allow for a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.5 whereas the Mixed Use policies only permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 4.0. Policy 17.E.13.1. of the City of Kitchener Official Plan require that holding provisions will be applied in situations where it is necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to implement this Plan to ensure that certain conditions, studies or requirements related to a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment are met. Complete Community A complete community creates and provides access to a mix of land uses including, a full range and mix of housing, including affordable housing, recreation, commerce, community and cultural facilities, health care facilities, employment, parks and open spaces distributed and connected in a coherent and efficient manner. A complete community also supports the use of public transit and active transportation, enabling residents to meet most of their daily needs within a short distance of their homes. Kitchener will be planned as a complete community that creates opportunities for all people to live, work and interact within close proximity. Planning for a complete community will aid in reducing the cost of infrastructure and servicing, encourage the use of public transit and active modes of transportation, promote social interaction, and foster a sense of community. The applicant is proposing to contribute aspects of a complete community on the subject lands with five high-rise, mixed-use buildings, ranging in height from 15 to 44 storeys with1,500 residential units and 2,000 square metres of commercial space. Considerable thought for the orientation and placement of the buildings, podium heights, building step backs, and improved pedestrian connection the Mill Station stop have been incorporated into the design for this high intensity mixed use development. Furthermore, the proposed development integrates a number of features that will benefit the community and foster a sense of community, including public amenity areas, affordable housing and a community centre space. The proposed development includes public amenity areas in the form of Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS). 4,400 square metres of programmed public space are proposed for this mixed used development. Preliminary concepts have contemplated features such as public art, a fountain, a skating rink, landscaping and seating opportunities. A publicly accessible urban plaza is with seamless integration to the station platform is proposed which will significantly improved pedestrian access to the station platform. Page 448 of 601 The owner is proposing a total of 50 affordable residential rental dwelling units within the proposed mixed use development. The units will be available for rent and managed by the Owner in partnership with a community partner. Dwellings will range in size and location within the proposed development, in each tower and on different floors. The Owner is proposing to dedicate approximately 186 square metres (2,000 square feet of space) within the proposed development to be utilized as a privately owned, publicly accessible community centre. The proposed space will be available for the public to utilize for meetings, events or other community uses. the owner is also proposing a commitment of $25,000 per year for 10 years (total of $250,000) to sponsor new community events and programs that directly benefit the residents within the community. Parkland The Proposed Development includes a combination of privately -owned publicly accessible open spaces (POPS) to meet the needs of residents and the surrounding community. This includes the Station urban plaza, Promenade, and park/playground area. Additional private amenity spaces will be provided for residents of the proposed development on the building rooftops and indoor amenity spaces. Further to these spaces, a new public park is proposed on the lands at 455 Mill Street with the potential to incorporate the Regional owned lands at the corner of Mill Street and Ottawa Street South, should the acquisition of the required lands be feasible. This new park could provide a gateway feature for the Site and Mill ION LRT station. Parkland dedication in a combination of land and cash -in -lieu will be taken through the site plan application process. Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Major Transit Station Areas, Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within a Major Transit Station Area. The planned function of the Major Transit Station Areas is to provide densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian - friendly and transit -oriented. Policies also require that development applications in Major Transit Station Areas give consideration to the Transit -Oriented Development policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the Official Plan. Generally, the Transit -Oriented Development policies support a compact urban form, that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience. These policies also support developments which foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit and future rapid transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities. The proposed development is located in a prime location for high intensity mixed use development. The subject lands are located directly adjacent to the Mill Station ION stop. The proposed development introduces a new form of housing to the surrounding area with a mix of Page 449 of 601 unit types. Housing diversity is needed to provide a greater housing choice, and meet the needs of increasingly diverse residents and household types such as young families, professionals, retirees, people with disabilities, all with a various range of income. Diverse housing types for this area of the City of Kitchener will be planned through future MTSA planning work. This application is in advance of that work and can be considered based on urban structure and future planned function of the community. As such, staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that not only complies with the City's policies for a Major Transit Station Area but also contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally -friendly city. PARTS Rockway Plan The subject lands are located within the PARTS Rockway Plan which is a guiding document that made recommendations for land uses within and around rapid transit station stops. The PARTS Rockway Plan made recommendation for amendments to the Secondary Plans within the MTSA, which have not yet been implemented. Some of the primary recommendations are to encourage the development of underutilized sites with higher density live -work environments and to increase housing supply with multi -unit residential while protecting existing stable neighbourhoods. The proposed development provides for a range of housing options and commercial space and the proposed amendment is in keeping with the PARTS Rockway vision for development within and around the ION stops. Figure 5: PARTS Rockway Land Use Plan Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) The subject lands are within the draft Rockway Secondary Plan, updated as part of the Neighbourhood Planning Reviews (NPR) project. A statutory public meeting was held December 9, 2019 regarding draft amendments to the plan. Under the proposed changes, the proposed land use for the subject lands is Mixed Use which allows for high intensity mixed use developments. Page 450 of 601 ManpLm?gIaammd Study A m SaGuondny AMM �m FIX umnr rkoe✓m Blaaruehmmy ION l.Iam&swpum Ydlxmd-Use Hligh Oenslty Mixed. Me 6AmaaNGwMvrod Idaonslly MImmd-use Low bawmisIty w canal IUM Wwakllerda EnM IsIbyrMOMl Cv.nim I E miplluycn—t I nstitn tionml E.Ublllshed L—Rise, IRer,IdkunrAM j L.. Rl— R.mmdmntlel Medium Rlmd Rlmgldleml:al 7 �"'!� i ow space �m WmluumalH wltagm ConmRlrwmtlaen MIL Two -zone Poky AmraVlanwdpldiW CA!'ag sl.aaldlnoarii mr 'no^ m ,,',"ralh ,rulrole, a"•""�•"'"yl SR. S43.66. Rmlilcy A ­ PARTS (Rockway Plan- Land Use P'fan Figure 5: PARTS Rockway Land Use Plan Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) The subject lands are within the draft Rockway Secondary Plan, updated as part of the Neighbourhood Planning Reviews (NPR) project. A statutory public meeting was held December 9, 2019 regarding draft amendments to the plan. Under the proposed changes, the proposed land use for the subject lands is Mixed Use which allows for high intensity mixed use developments. Page 450 of 601 r pw di Socondary, Man Booindary Specific POcy Ambi Figure 6: NPR Rockway Secondary Plan - Proposed Land Use Plan As part of the NPR project, the subject lands are proposed to be zoned MIX -4 (High Rise Mixed Use Four Zone). The proposed MIX -4 zone, which is new zone proposed through the NPR, implements the mixed use land use designation and allows for high rise mixed use buildings with no maximum building height and permits a floor space ratio of up to 5.0. Figure 7: NPR Rockway Secondary Plan - Proposed Zoning The proposed Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the lands Mixed Use with the Site -Specific Policy Area No. 62, and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to zone the lands `Mix -3' zone with Site Specific Provision (362), aligns with the high intensity mixed use vision for the subject lands than that is proposed through the NPR project. Page 451 of 601 The NPR project is under review and updated draft land use designations and zoning will be considered in through future MTSA planning in 2023 as part of the Growing Together project. Urban Desian Policies: 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, attached as Appendix `C', 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 — All Street frontages are activated by at -grade commercial units, with a combined 2,000 square metres of commercial space proposed along Mill Street and the internal the private road. Furthermore, all buildings' principal entrances and lobbies are located at grade with direct access to public sidewalks and the Mill Station ION stop. The five 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 five towers have well defined podiums and building step backs which helps enhance the public realm. Tower Desian Building A (31 storeys) Building B (44 storeys) Building C (40 storeys) and Building D (15 storeys) are classified as a "Compact Point" towers. All four (4) buildings have well defined podiums. Building D (15 storeys) includes a 5 -storey podium situated along Mill Street with building step backs. This provides a transition to the lower density areas. Buildings A , B and C are the tallest buildings and are all situated towards the rear of the site and situated on top of 8 -storey podiums with various building step backs. The massing of all the buildings is broken up vertically by variation and the articulation of building materials Building E is 21 storeys in height and is classified as a "Large Slab" as the proposed tower floor plate is more than 850 square metres in area. This building has been oriented towards Mill Street with a 6 storey podium with various building step backs as the tower get taller. 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. 10 Page 452 of 601 Shadow Impact Stud 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 will require wind mitigation design features. A full Wind Assessment will be required and reviewed through the site plan application process. 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 (as revised) now meets the onsite and offsite separation distance requirements of the Design for Tall Building Guidelines. Staff recommends that the proposed Urban Design Brief, attached as Appendix 'C', be adopted and that staff be directed to apply the Urban Design Brief through the Site Plan Approval process. 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 directly adjacent to the Mill ION station stop. The building has excellent access to cycling networks, including existing on and off- street cycling facilities and is located in close proximity to the Iron Horse Trail. The location of the subject lands, in the context of the City's integrated transportation system, supports the proposal for transit -oriented development on the subject lands. Policy 3.C.2.22 states that until such time as Station Area Plans are completed and this Plan is amended accordingly, in the interim, any development application submitted within a Major 11 Page 453 of 601 Transit Station Area will be reviewed generally in accordance with the Transit -Oriented Development Policies included in Section 13.C.3.12 The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications support a more -dense residential development. The location of the proposed buildings, secured through the proposed site-specific provisions, will result in a compatible 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. Furthermore, the proposed development will enhance access and pedestrian connections to the Mill Station ION stop. At future site plan approval processes, the design of the buildings will have to feature a high quality public realm to enhance the identity of the area and create gathering points for social interaction, community events and other activities. Additionally, secured and visitor bicycle parking is required as part of the Zoning By-law. Housing Policies: Section 4.1.1 of the City's Official Plan contains policies with the primary objective to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed development increases the range of dwelling units available in the city. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types including, one, two and three- bedroom units along with 50 affordable dwelling units that will be made available for rent by the owner. The wide range of units, in this location, will 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 explored at the Site Plan Application stage. Proposed Official Plan Amendment Conclusions The subject application requests that the land use designation as shown on Map 3 of the 2014 Official Plan be changed from `General Industrial Employment' to `Mixed Use' and that Map 5 be amended to add Site Specific Policy Area No. 62. Based on the above policy and planning analysis, staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment represents good 12 Page 454 of 601 planning and recommend that the proposed Official Plan Amendment be approved in the form shown in Appendix "A". SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) is hereby amended as follows: a) Part D, Section 15.D.12 is amended by adding Site Specific Policy Area 15.D.12.62 as follows: "15.D.12.62. 455-509 Mill Street Notwithstanding the Mixed Use land use designation and policies, on the lands municipally known 455-509 Mill Street, a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.5 will be permitted." b) Amend Map No. 3 — Land Use by: i) Designating the lands municipally addressed as 455-509 Mill Street `Mixed Use' instead of `General Industrial Employment', as shown on the attached Schedule `A'. c) Amend Map No. 5 — Specific Policy Areas by: i) Adding Site Specific Policy Area 62 to the subject lands as shown on the attached Schedule `B'. 13 Page 455 of 601 APPENDIX 1: Notice of the Plan n i 11( 1 & Stratill::!113ic Initiatives Committee MeetinI Aril 24, 2023 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING j for a development in your neighbourhood of 455-509, Mill Street Concept Drawing Z A M' INN - Have YourVoice Heard! Date, April 4,„ 2023 Location,: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 IKing,, Street West 9T,Virtluali Zom IMeeting 1 6 view the staff re p o rt, agenda, meeting details, start finie, of this item or to appear as a delegafion,,Osit: kitchener.ca/meetings Fo learn more abiout this projiect, in&sding information on your appeal) rights, visit www. kitchen e r.,ca/ PlainningApplications or contact, I l x,.,r­", �l V J,`, r 1 1 1 VJ C � I , Craig Durnart, Senior Planner 3 �1/ 0i I') I 11!: �1] 1, 1 1 z�,l Ra 1j: 519.741.2200 x 7073 Sf ;'5 craig.durnarv, kiltichener.ca rhe City, of Kitchener will consider applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to faicHitate the redevelopment cif' the lands with a high intensity mixed-use development with 5, towers ranging in, heights froni 15 to 44 storeys proposing, a total Floor Space Rab o 0: SR) of 8.5. "The mixed-use development w4l consist of approx4iiately 1 SOO residential Units, approxiMiately 2000,square metres, Of COrTlimerciA 'floor area,, 1141 'vehicle paNng spaces and 11150 bicycle parking spaces. 14 Page 456 of 601 APPENDIX 2: Minutes of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (April 24, 2023) 15 Page 457 of 601 APPENDIX 3 - Minutes of the Meeting of City Council (May 8, 2023) 16 Page 458 of 601 a Z (6 U ❑ M CD o L a LO d N (0 0 E � r a W Q O W O O o Z Z� N o a m m - N W Q W cn O E d N N c7 V a O N 70 Q E W U Z Q m z W ca70 d N z ca L O a Y Q Z � U L c � L a O ++ N LLC1gQ � � m � _0 E 0 a"i ami aa)D Z W z LL 0 LLJE -0 O L L - _ 0- � £ N 'O W 2 Z T N N — O O Ur N Q QJ F- W E E L L c x V Q o a) o o ami a) m a x f� E a a 0 LLJ o U z O a LL Q Y w U J � � >,LU 10 z W 41j ! y,'. r'•a \ . Q f ll O LL Z W LL OW IN 0 `i%�y.z , Yiy.z' .st' .st' .st' .st' .st' .st' .st' .st' .st' _ O• '� i c s G 'k, ,F ' •.S, .S, ?fSo +fSi ? fSo +fSi ! fSo +.fSi ! fSo [ CO I r � I ., p a. � � r -i I •. � t � iii` • r'. s. � t � a •�` • r'. s. � r � A:•' ..-� �.�.•.. �:•' .. r l I I I I III II I II �i 4 I 7 I I i 4. I ��'.' �'. k,}�'- x • �� �IL �'. �y}�'- x '•' [o a I N • 4• iii n t a . • iii iii iii 9 N w w w w N O W N H O W O N } 00 J W J CD W Q H U Q II I Il,l I U) D Su uuu n muuu muu muw muw mu � muu 1. S b M b m O IIII, 1111111 r U ...... .......... Z IIII I' ................. ................. li II II I ............... Q I I , I, ............. O .............. 111111 IIII, W U J III^ til IIIIIIIII I ...... I I Ir ........... J O J IIII I IIIIIIII i �I II I I .......... J I � I II 11 UJ II J, IIII I I O I J I S I I I I I O III, I Illi O I �i 1111111 A Z u") .116... .116.. 2 Ln _ LC) II I .t V Q I U 1r � — 1 .t J II 1r a I e. I s 9 I , I c I . ............... I . 1 .............. Q I I p i . ............ Ilb { ........... I I p I a I . . ......... I 1 a a I L a, 0 0 0 a� ca PROPOSED BY — LAW 2023 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended and By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-laws for the City of Kitchener — Polocorp Inc. — 455, 459, 469, 473, 477, 481, 485, and 509 Mill Street) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Numbers 118, 144 and 145 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended by removing 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. 2. Schedule Numbers 118, 144 and 145 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby further amended by removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 118, 144 and 145 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 are hereby further amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, and by zoning the Area 1 lands thereafter as Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX - 3) with Site Specific Provision (362) and Holding Provision (43). 4. Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 118, 144 and 145 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 are hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 5. Section 20 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Holding Provision (43) thereto as follows: Page 461 of 601 "(43). Notwithstanding Section 8, of this By-law within the lands zoned MIX -3 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 118, 144 and 145 of Appendix "A": i) No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) 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 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." 6. Section 19 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Site Specific Provision (362) thereto as follows: "(362). Notwithstanding Section 5.6, Table 5-5, and Section 8.3, Table 8-2 of this By-law within the lands zoned MIX -3 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 118, 144 and 145 of Appendix "A", the following special regulations shall apply: a) The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 8.5 and shall be calculated pre road widening and pre conveyance of park land. b) The maximum building height shall be 145.0 metres. c) The maximum number of storeys shall be 44. d) That parking be provided at a rate of 0.55 parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.05 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit. Page 462 of 601 e) The minimum rear yard building podium setback shall be 0 metres. f) The minimum rear yard building tower setback shall be 2.5 metres. g) The minimum interior side yard building setback shall be 2.9 metres and regulated pre parkland conveyance. h) The minimum ground floor street line fagade width as a percent of the width of the abutting street line shall be 25% i) The maximum number of storeys in the base of a mid -rise building or tall building shall be 8. j) The minimum non residential gross floor area shall be 2000 square metres. k) Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited." 7. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _ (455, 459, 469, 473, 477, 481, 485, and 509 Mill Street) comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended. 12023. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of Mayor Clerk Page 463 of 601 Z o cn a Z w z d> w z 0 Of _ Ux 01 N O � ♦— N Q LL E O w J i Z o p W �? M O Z Z W Q O m Q O z= Q O O Z w Z W 0 N IN Q co E) J U LO O U Ln Q W L R W~ ON z w ZO W O Z 3 � \ co af Z> H J N N Q Q W \ ?� ON o f W Z W Q ON O Z Q w W v } Q LO \ _ � wacno w o w N> z- M 2 Q � O z W w ��Cn(n>X O U O z V) i ZIQ.-O� J O W LL Cn (n W woo U _� Z \- Z Q m z x o Q O Q Q J J J = W w_ Z J o O N N z J F— U Q U= J Z Q Q Q in J W Q Z W J N Q �QLU � g J 1- �< w0X0 z p O Q La w z�-- ,r 2 m w w w of 0W oN LL w N a U = U—_c�LU�� O (Dw W za�W— �w Q� w �z w Q�wM w�wax ✓✓ w� Ooo��Jm 00 O W (� u> (� w z X JLU Z z � Z � X � � � Z � W � m W WO���0in J Z N J UZ Z2QU �M+ S�r, W Z �Q �wcrZO —zZ �� L9 T r� �xOX 0UW� , V� V) QQW m Z<zn m U_ Q Of Q m ZN Nu)Owo Y W Q ,✓ ✓ '+ r i�r ✓.iJ i '�,�,,, i�,,�✓� ■� Vd:✓✓ n��r� ✓ %; x. i ✓� r�"�' � �i i�J� i, 4 �" ", e �,✓ ✓(,L ✓ �, ✓ 1J� ✓ �J�✓�T 'X �: i�7 4/� i� y F/�%;�r',�✓ "1 � ✓� Z w ��✓y,� ✓�� r: n�i✓� ✓i�tr+ �y iJv r �,�, �✓� i� <✓ ,ver � �, �✓ti; i i �r� r �✓� ✓ fi ✓f, nu✓ ti,✓ �?� n'��✓�2 +,<\, ,i,�iiv M, i % f ✓�i✓��'�,✓�'a✓� J ✓fi�r+.e� 'd v' ✓ �i {✓ ✓��r�s •�iwsv rh i' �, v✓ ✓ r W `'� �r �� "'y'�;�i, ,�;y '✓� ✓ r�. x �,'�,. ✓ti, ✓ �✓✓��i � � v� � n - ✓ � "i�;y�i� w, , /Q�'i � i:r��J��i� �ii��'' �l'�✓�✓i�i���✓ � W Z � U i ,i; 6 �✓ �Mr i�'i ✓�a ✓�'�Y � 1;�� '" s�✓� �', t i1'?`ii��� ✓�rk� q , ��(� ✓ �� r ��✓ '�'✓`✓���i'�. �, iu,✓��T�;'� � i s � ���i.+ �.°`i'ti /� i,.y;'�`✓. � l 6� �! ` �%�. �'����, ✓iii- ✓ ✓^�'''i wi�,yi��i?�i„'i�l� �Ji b;,��°>�r` i,{{��44,,;i�!�� Y�i�”%�i'���'��✓�h'i..��✓��'iiT';w. �, 2i W > '✓4 � ,� '✓�! � s; ti ✓ J�� J{r ✓ �� �J� i iy � t � r`�✓"✓',X,„/n✓� " �✓: n''vrrr� erg �'ld ✓� � ✓� ✓ I, n ��.✓,�r'�,,A �,J'✓ a ��;'�� �n � ✓ ✓ i 1 i � �A n'41 i�a"'✓ iS.,r r ✓ � �✓�''�,, I �,'9 ✓ �i; �✓ ��� rr i� v l y� i�� �y %�� y�� �ai�i�� iii ��� 1r", 0 of W �\ ?'ih ✓` V)�j��r Citi ri `�, s ��;� i'V ^'�� �lT"i�4�����T+�i✓� J✓� 1`;�'vi% �y �l,:�la Q (n ���� ✓��'�r1 . '}'k�^?✓ �J'h' ��,"%'�✓� '�:�j,Jv�j( ,� ��jvi'k ✓iia: i`ir %"i.. Q Z /1W r✓�� ✓' r r ^1'��✓ �' " `� ""< 'i i J 0- nu✓� ✓ ✓v ✓� �� ✓ ✓� r v 0- X i� fir, ✓✓✓ ����r✓ i� V X�ti i �� �� M O 1 SAS N 1 �lil�r /� ✓ ( ✓ W J v , , s,� ���✓�R <�: ✓+ ti J w h✓ ✓ ✓� Ai ti✓bra✓ R( �� .v erg �e✓� cl v ✓ r+c it � nti `✓ � r I 1 u CY C:v.v� >�, ✓1 Sar �r uuuuuuuuuuu III � NO n`Ic c co T 1✓)W nul'y Z LL / X OJ pp0uu Iluuu 1 N r N o M N N 1 1 I N W 1 o Q O= I 1 w O U 0 CO I � upuuuuuuW� Q co Q 1 o W U J J W Q 1 un U �IIIIIIIIIIIII Q r N � U) 0 H O H s_ ---- dna Os --- --- Lt37na _ Q _ U w = Z O J .. d — 'larf 00-)a C) C u 1.0 ' c �Lr) co U C V V i i Q O Z N � � N Q � � I 'v1 �amumw hmou ooiuu„„ 4—j n� 4—/ E W E \ m ISL CO V T p 0 N 0 0 0 LO (D Q) 0) m n I- w e \ \ / / �l \ / / / / 0 . . \ / % % / % $ \ / E \ \ \ / 9 \ > 0 $ k ° / / ® ' ° / cu u . : < Q \ ( / g g rn @ / / a- / \/m \ƒ2 < -i { / \ = ( J / / °/ ƒ = k \ m 7 < J u - k 0\ \ / e 3 % e c 3 e 3 J 0 a 6 \ % 0 ƒ a I- w e \ \ / / �l \ / / / / 0 . . . . C'4 ƒ \ / E \ \ \ / 9 \ > 0 $ k ° / / ® ' ° / cu u . : < Q \ ( / g g rn % / / a- / \/m \ƒ2 -i � � \ \ \ \ \ ƒ / Z3 : u % \/m \ƒ2 = j ® / 0\ 6 \ % ƒ 2; / / � � � - } 3 / $ \ CO \ \ / e . / � � 0 C-0 o • _ _ o 3 . Ln u o o 0 c N E a c> o E O Ln u w > a _ o _ Q) ._ } Ol O a) �O Ol 6, Q o _m Q ? •� ) �E 0 a 0o c n _0 N a+ VO NO Q c0 QQ_ i O X .- - N U 7 m Q + m O r6 t c c u v Q m Ln c O G_ c — • N p pu Q v m F m to z L � LAV) o p a, _ E z T 3 r6 E �^ a) r6 +� v +' u LA - Q- I 0- 'll- S O D 'U 0) o c oU O v Q a) O 0 0 3 O -6 E= v c E c >, :171 Q Q O c O Q) Q N N o p Q) Ti � p O -0-0 C Q> m Q) z 1 > � a) Ol N a) > v 0 Z LnN N O '� + } Q c u a Q) _p o O O0 N oO a) Ol C .Ln + p N n u N 7 N c 6 — > •� — c 0 z O ,a) c O t V a -E 0 = H p u � v) V a ra i vii Ou N r) Q 7D a) c O u rn} O N O 0 0 O O O c m O} T + O x c+ > > u O O p N c a) V Ln (D > C 2' `n N t% Q}' L c c a) c ri5 p r6 T O O `M : Q O a Q LLn a) rb N u r6 ^ ~ } c O O 3 O `� } c c a) u > (1) O > a) c Di c u c O_ •� i-0 7DV) E U } aJ C Q) luul luulm a) p v� .� V' x * = o O v N �_ p r6 O CC O m Q p + Q In o > O N m > c Q Q) c T +-� aJ O O a) O aJ x_ Q o O Q c > N v c Ln 11, -0 v U v +N N c C - E � O v' Q) a) n nn00 IMPiwluuluuluulw to c O — 75 O c • (Z Q x r6 O +� Q T N v c IIIIIIIII M a) +� rp + pl V) c v a) N QLn +- r6 0 ' U c m p Q 6 c v +� O Q c c+ v a) _ — c c O O c c Q II N m m c Ol O p Q n + O O c m O Q a) n Q L a) —� Olo O ^ O of Ol O u in O c LEO p V) QQ) uc a) I I } v c >c �p c vu p=- c p O Q> , Q 0) Q N CO E CD 1 o O p Q v c o 2 r° 0 }c— uumumwwww D 'E wLr) Q T v p ro ra 00 C �_ a) c IIIIII Q N v v ) N n o > v= ru v `n m } m 0 E c6 rn }, N u rn a) T c p in i r6 + IIIIIIIIIII O a) }, � c O E = O Z u Q c c fl } N ra M c O O IM in v Q E Q)-0 m Ol c p1 O O c O in Q c N - O a) v > O a) � •� •O Q .O IM + — Q Q O o' Ou U) �C d Q m i% O W w� um MI Q o O 6 Q Q O� cu p t6 n Z � m a o .� CD > .� c Q • • • • • c 3 x u c O 0 Ln � u a) c a) >c— u. f u u 7D D p a) Ou a) O m— LI) OO Ln W w� wl wl 0 b n in ii Q . ,c- aaaua�vawkaa D I W • C o L c o Q) +� T O Ov C s Q i N r+6 N O E N E p O =O O Q U —^ — p N O O 7 E > Ln p E E m � 0 O 'E Q N > N 0 lz 4J r+a c O Q N Q '+- O w O v u 0 Q) '� v 0 w C E Do- U .� O -C vi � E v c o +�- o > Q Q E U c •_ O Q N Ol N v CO O N LnE uumumumumumw c 7 Z) p O O O v ra +' Ln E Ln s Iu v E LL N ' O E+ O G x O u Q) � cc O v�O N U O > O c6 mmm F, CC ra + O O p • L c N 0-) C s Q i O > CO p O =O O Q LLnQ O O o) Ln p E Q 0 'E O lz 4J > c c x N Ln =' w O '� a w E E Do- U (LDn +3 p uu �, E v c o +�- o > Q r6 iumumumw U •_ Q N Ol v v CO Ln� v uumumumumumw c 7 LO N co N O E N s Iu v E LL 6 Q O E+ O G x O u Q) �4uu O v�O E 71- O c6 mmm F, E N O p CO + Ln 0 umumum C +' p v Q E umumum CD' C N N p cn c O N � V Oa✓ N U c+a V) - 3 O- N O mw Q z IIIIII''''''m :. U 0 i _� O N U — E Iu immlm_ coli 0 Y — .^ O i � umumumumw � LnCL) r C N � � uumumumumumw O E E Q) Q O+ a� O @ N O 0 uO � .� O U mQ 0 +� N CTC i d Q 4J cB Q cr • f6 ate--+ N NZ U p + N a-� Q 'V) O O Q U O QV) U~ Ln N C N t v Y N Ln O T Ln Ln W s Q O +' Q U vU N v N x U r6 'cn T •_ i v CO Ln� .O � vNi co N +� + N u O � O _ E a Ln 71- _ F, E N 3 C p v Q � N U O N U t6 7D r N O E Q) 3 E @ O 0 v � O+ E N U mQ L +� N CTC O i IN c�6 0 LM •v� -0 -0 N Q N C • • • • • f6 ate--+ N NZ U p + N a-� Q 'V) O O Q U O QV) U~ Ln N C N t v Y N Ln O T Ln Ln W 0 9 ■ \ \ \ \ \ « ® 2 / / G \ \ « ƒ \ � a > \\ / E \ w y / y /cn/ } � E c ( z \ m Q) o % \ \ 0 ) Q)\ _ e / / s e e s ƒ 7 / % � / / ( > c / \ t (L) « .J % 2 ƒ \ / LU m } = R > . = --» / c«/ G 2 2 c @ / / 5 m \ n 2 2 = g G g e Ln G$ & � \_ G G \ / I = e �»\ \ t ? § [ ( / LU \ .\ / f / 5 \ .. \ 3G ° \ / \ / ( / t -0a § ) =.g /E \ � 2 Oro / / / ./ e t 2 2 y e 2 g o rn \ / \ \ ( \ \ [ > / ƒ o6) \ \ 2 % / = 0 .9 \ ƒ ƒ / \ 0 ƒ »§ % k 6 G ee ( � / % / a E \ 0 K--\ / / \ o \ 6 7 / = ) \ / / / ƒ , e 2 = ■ \ \ \ \ \ « ® 2 / / G \ \ « ƒ \ � a > \\ / E \ w y / y /cn/ } � E c ( z \ m Q) o % \ \ 0 ) Q)\ _ e / / s e e s ƒ 7 / % � / / ( > c / \ t (L) « .J % 2 ƒ \ / LU m } = R > . = --» / c«/ G 2 2 c @ / / 5 m \ n 2 2 = g G g e Ln G$ & g � \_ G G 2 / a / I Q0 G / �»\ c t ? § [ ( / / \ 3 \Ln ƒ \ 5 \ .. \ 3G ° / \ / ( / t -0a § e =.g /E \ � 2 ƒ % / 3 > ./ e t 2 2 y e 2 g o \ ƒ \ / \ \ /Lj- g iumumumumumw nmoum C7 _0 m C) E o N - N v `� _0 c N N N N �1 N N U O N > �O c p pl Oo — N c6 i �1 C •ca + N N j O v 6 v + N N �7- V) rn N O`a 'ice Q } f6 + +� E Ln ca N i N N O O (1) 3 c -C v — -C V)Q)o m m.3 00 v E c 0 ~ N o O N N 6 t6 v u_ a� n C — c V) o 3 p m 7D L Ln c6 r6 _0 N pl z0 Lr) a s0 0 v O kA }, VV) E V)N N }, 0 4J v Vl 0 `—n N + 0 ° 7D Q) v v .' o v Ln i L, p Ln 0 ° v M Q °U v o>� Lij N o v a, Q 0 42 L i N 'x V) — V1 Q N Q .� L p — 61 Q1 4J O N Q)V) > •C N Q i 6 O u' Q O+ io Q co Q+ Q ro N O U T QJ Z + N o ° Oo (1) + a U in U O V) T O N m IIIIIIIIIII Q EM N - — - N �I 1 � � : � O W � � O _ O Q o N cn O O QLU N O a v N O o v Z � N o D m 7 W N T m Y— N N O Co m c LL- °BYu 0 c 0 E O OV � O Ln Q) OM�� NN p N =3 N T � �O hiu In C' JO m 'N ±' z3 (L)C N .N H O O O 0 _0 v p� l0 6 N N O V) O 0 M T m Ln + ryi�III�� �0 N � �IIIY..^..,....li .............'......................I III Ylylyi O N 6i � � L Q O = E C O '��� li N � � � � O In `� O � 4J O x c6 �I��U� O O ru E �lllf�u fumlllii°°° o Ln 6 N O U i 0 Q Q � C7 m il]WS VIAVIAO 4.- 0 N00 D 0 z W rn m ti N c N t v a� Ln CD G rn 0 Ln L, L, > L N N O n3 v + v E '- V + O Q v > O > Q, N E C > N •X O Q) � O O V � L 0- Q N S N Q) Q) 3 v LnLn -0 O X V M > z- O O E = MEO O7 N ID N •N Q) O O v v C Q) vi v 3 -0 o O E v, o .^ a E E Q) N 01 Q) >> N • 1 Q, • �, c s v 3 > T 3 aJ E N N Lo O U E C) E N M O `° O N 0- c7- LU E s p p (A E O.Ln c v a, Z30 v v c O n3 z O O N W f6 O N M N W y c Ln Ln N Q> E _ O E Q7 C O — a E N00 c> + L N -Cv c VO v E O Q L O Q L M E Q NO V O N M v v N C a c V O �_ V+ s 6 c M c M O O 0 0 — Q) QJ MV7 M (N6 Ln QJ '�' M N E N N N_ N = +' O co O N > p -0-'N � +� O N a, V)Q N - 0 0 Q) 0 v Q' dS -0 O @ -0 O cye 'N M MU ' i 01 >, O 01 Q) Q L a O +� v c m-C O C V E E a� o G) n3 > `6 -0 +I __ 3 N N a) N O1 v r6 In O � N — ca J i O O J L V c = N N a� O N O �, z O n3 N }, O E Q O (� M V M N E N Q) m v a o M O� O O( Ln>� z ai N a) M E- n O N O U O C f6 Q � V — cL/)o 0 _ H ( Q M M � — Lr Q, o a o E u Q a -C� 0 � L 0 w L N + w O (n H Q N M Un -0 W rn m ti N c N t v a� Ln CD G rn 0 Ln L, L, Q) Z v N C v Q) w N C v T O v CO co u O ° }s N NLn x � � NO a o > oJo � _O °' @ ru Q) a� Ln Q) ca c — N O N v+ a N a p Q c E w Ln vcz O Q + o O C p u> ' C ra } p C C ani (z° v � o � ° 0 �' o -C u p l7 +, c v > - O x u p a� o Q Q v T. V •+ Q ° + O O N C C N Q O Q) a) o CD LL -'o, Z5Q a �" a� c L a� ca u 3 Q c ra v, o >, -C } a� N 6 v Q) °� p O 1 N Q) O O -6 C W i + 0 :tC >, v v V) O 3 O Ln o }' ~ E cB Q .O O 'U cn T M Z5 i o w L N u vi to E p p U Q1 +� N o E cn C'ju E ''— Q N. �: m Z E N E L O p m Q Ln N �, O �j O L O OC v n O C O Q d U m 11 III gum IuIlmlIumuml IImI IWiumlumwllV O QJ Q IQIYiiamw +� p +-' Q W L > +' � Q) CT >� 3 41 + O p 4 � + C I�umuum +' Q) Dl Q) `~ cn Ol Q) a O Q— n 6 i Q) loin iumm v � cn cn QJ p '+� al , cn Q 6 a 3 ami LL- 'n a� o IIII oc a., uumumumumwllV Q) a-- 3 c6 N N Q . _ Q C iiu loin um 'v� Q) Q) O Q) O V (6 QJ Q .O VO fd SII IIIIIIII QJ 6 N'LI) o i) > E C n 0 o+ — @ 6 QJ loin um ca •� Z C Q) .� Q o _o U _ .° a.Ti c0 T C O Ill iumlulIlI. ' j > o > E E — X Z Q cNc O) v) c6 'vf Q +-' IWium lumwl� V O 7 Q) •N 0 N C > f6 M 0 LZ L) .> N Q) C QJ + N c6 N C C � u "a u= +� O 7 r6 N' cn c6 loin iumm NC O U loin iumm Cv v v pl .++c� a O> Ln 0 a w Z3 - fu E o u O O O •p u �O �-O o a -0' R NN + TC -0 N vQ C _ loin iumw C `O d fib U Ln i i C ° Q cn u _ O p• 4J p V O > H m C' u Ln M Q co n 2 Q — f6 C 'in u C = O r6 minium .> 'L l/) � •y, C � — CV rvi 'i (3) C (1) W QJ U -C p - O u oc \ } $ J / / / 7 ®° \ \ o 6 LU / y\ y \ s e \ _/ o / u a / y= \ x 6 7 f § o& 2 e g a G E / / } ( 7 $ » / s 7 e a s = t § / ° ( e\ / 7 9 \3 2 _ 00 LIn= t \ / _/ / 2§ ® J / \ ( \ / \ a a) & / / e J _% \ ± { \ \ / D E a» / E a 2 3 \ 4® w 3= �\\ ƒ / 3 7 \ - / c 2 3 g .@ -/ % 7 2 Ln » - cu t \ 7&\/ 's e c m=« 6 ƒ / \ / / ƒ ? / / t / � \ \ @ % }%± e e ° » 0 y s \ m 0 o ± e E ) « \ / ± s g / & ° » ± 7/ In \// 2 M % ° ( / / < / ƒ / a t e / m < 0 2 7 '\ .» e / ƒ 2 \ \ / / / \ \ m\ 3 t c w e 3 3 / \ / J / 2 / � Q) / t ) G & \ t s / 7 ) \ / / / \ / / / y / / 0 z{ { a ®/ 2 j ° [% u { / 3 (\/ 6 2 3Ln \ e # \ / \ \ \ c / \ / ƒ \ \ \ 7 % % ƒ \ \ L/) / 2 \ ' \ % 7 \ / G / (/ \ k \ / LE / / / 0 c > 2± e s« < a=% e e <» Q e a c \ LU / / o / u / \ ) / - E / } ( 7 $ » / s 7 e a s = t § / ° ( * / 7 E _ 00 \ \ \ 0 _/ / e ® J \ \ / a a) 3 / / e \ J ± { \ y 2 E a» E a o E o J± w ƒ / / 7 \ / / m N O N T co L. i O Q N 2) LA N n D 0 K:%-, 0 WN 0 co 0 �o �r-- � m � E n D � 2 / \ � ƒ 5 ± _ = ƒ / / ƒ ® 6 ƒ j / 0 ± m t y p p.0 o / 7 ƒ / / \ \ / 0 WN 0 co 0 �o �r-- � m � E n D 2= e¥/ c o e y o a z e /= e* @ Lr) £ / £ = 3 / / g / m » x g \ /== 2 a% u x \ y) ƒ / u c / ƒ \ ƒ tj ƒ \ } \ / \ / \ _ / — / e / $ _ o o ) ƒ g _ / _ ' y g R / / \ ^ \ m t ƒ t » \ 7 Q) DO / ƒ ( Z3 / t \ ' y v 2 e o e t $= e o / / \ ƒ / \ 5 + ° Q)§ § / 2 3 g=/ g w 2 l e a « t E/«< \ / % e e o y — ~° ° c u° e e 3 \ S ƒ 6 ƒ @ \ « / n } e g o § = g . ƒ/ 7 2\ 3 \ 0 \ a j J/ 2 G— / _° 2 a e$& e[ } 2. f w) 2 \\ 3 E $ _ / 2 m s g « _ / / \ ° * 2 « R E y / \ / / / \ / [ / _ / % ƒ o / + ƒ ® ± 3 ° m \ / / / � \ / ) / / / / \ \ . G _§ £ 2® J u o % » � } ¢ 4- 0) \ - / / / « / / / ( \ \ g a$ e& o m 0 e &/ y» t\/ /\ a / 3 / \ % \ / ) ƒ \ E / £ \ t / / / / / I D 0 co 4.- 0 0 co can Izi C) c o (3) E _0 (1) c o 0 0 Q v a o v a a� C) m O c O Q a Q N � .a c . LA o O m > V El O V C O c v N u O C O � n > ; > N tD N U 'C� a + d Q) p rrl a� N .> U a- _ rri m N p0 0 p > N LE> N > V Lf) C6 z Izi C) z C3)� o v a v a C) a r Q a �; � .a z a s o o > El v a o v 'C� a o .a v L o v a o _ o o a O o i o N S N Q In N +„ N N 'a Q h v Q5 s a s O V i o G a o a a a, a o v a 'a •�. v v o a Q:;) C •a a � � •> �.' � N � al a O UnQj v_ O Q O o ate, v Z O Y a vLn a s s> o �, v .N °� r3) a s S a 4ZN Qj -Z O v., Co vi Q3 p i c� •�, >> a a � O N Q v i N i V a � j a v a v�°� W J a a, LA, Z c m pl N N i C C m 41 } c -C c > ) m m c O O� O O - d-0 c� O O n C > O+ L V E inC C 0 N C O 3 Ln C C Q -0 Qj LO Q m 4J O -0 Q 0 C:+ + C Q O + O N+ O Q L c v O c v o c0 E > Q c v E .oN 0 3 v '� o v L N > p > j 0 c n v N c N v 0- 0 c v Q) 0 �' Q)v c = o L 0 E Q -o o o Q) CL Ln C 2 Q) O .� a� 0, N -0.N o c c O O}+ o N + V Q 0 0 >O N o O L p N c6 'p O+ O N in V n O c c++ p v O c v C �, N L c c o C Q E o E c N Q a)LEa Q-0 ° U c Q v 0i • • Q) o C (D O L E v O m 'cn Ea E Q O u -0 aJ N L O vi c Ln O N + X a co CC L O In Ln N O O m CD Ou Q ca O N O Q `� > v v Q L cn v Q O Q=_ v Q @ .� a) m Q) Ln cV6 a) O1 Q c6 m - Q + .0 -C O � n a) .� m V O N Ol a) N Q) u- CC C O C Z3 O 0 O X a) _ p E Q) � a) NLN' EU -EL' O 0 a N O < Q Q � X � Q -0 m (O N O � v_ O N al v + Q CJ Q • • 0 0 0 00co N Q) o C (D O L E v O m 'cn C s E Q O u -0 aJ N L O vi c Ln O N + X 0 O _0 O O In Q) QJ -0 o s Q �-- - N N O Ou Q + O N O Q `� > v v Q L cn v Q O Q=_ v Q @ .� 7 0 0 0 00co N Q) o C (D E E v O m 'cn a) u E Q O u -0 aJ N L O U O O N + X 0 N - Q) QJ -0 o s o O Q N �a.l L — L O O O N a) Lno O Q c - .0 -C O n 3 -E vi �E .� 0 0 0 00co N o Q) O V � Q) O N O � Q � Q O Q Q) � L v O c .I E N N n Q) E Lcn a) v L Q O Q) N O E m E a) pl + E N - Z N O 0 a) a) N a) a) Ln N O — a) v > O 3 c N V L a) O O a) u_ 0 O aJ [6 c6 Ol O C .� 0 Q n O v to C c i (D > Ln o o- 3 a) v, + + v v +>n5 -CO L V+ N @ Q) * v) Ol O + E 0 a O Q O O E Q N O� N N o) E Q -Q) N j V) OV N v ~ L iVi, m m c _� cn Q O i j a) N O m O + - + O > a) Q c v v O L O a r6 u mn o a) 3:O rata Q) +� O O Qj 0- 0- 0o Q) � � O U a) o _ co'N . a) O O a -- > •Lc N a) N Ln _ Q Ln -CLn v Ov Q a) J O O -C Q O a) p O iL- 0- 0- .� V U) Q-0 u Q a) Ln 0 0 0 00co N z 4.- 0 co ca 11 iumumumumm I� i i.. uWINIMIumumw uuuiuuiuuiw i IIS' uumumumumumw ium iumm N � LA a fa Ln O Q U E LA O O C O O Q U LM E p T � � N O Q 3: O N N O E > C i O Z3 Q O N N O m O N C Q >, N C O j C U Ln LA (D N N C O O V U Q ca v O N O > p C 7 O C ) � N O Nru O O L) p E Q Q -- 0 a LM a 9 0 o 0 °cn N N O m Q) V) O V N p U N Q C 0 O > v i O o V 0 n . v N QJ +, a N E Q) O oQ o � � o C 3 4h, C Q O oE O C v p U OCID + O Q i Y O C �A 0 _ O cr- O • n 6 E 0 T � V z OQ V T O O w O } ' pl LO N = O 3 -r3 O +' N i N C O O -0 UN N Ln Q) d a Q ° O O Q_ V E O + O N U O O =LA N ) o N Q i U -0 °� O O .� O O C Q a) Q+ N v O vi Q 0 C � a _ V E > Q N N c6 � ut L c O O Q ~ QS O N CL LA N Ln O m p O z �J n O c~c ^ Q Q ) QCLp t v - O N C LA Lj- o o o 6 3 Q N Vl V) O Q � N r— Q>00s N' O N V + N N 'n V V v V a m _ p V, a .> rn L O i rvl 6> v Z Q, v O v � V1 CL U ut (n d @ In ) Q • • • N � LA a fa Ln O Q U E LA O O C O O Q U LM E p T � � N O Q 3: O N N O E > C i O Z3 Q O N N O m O N C Q >, N C O j C U Ln LA (D N N C O O V U Q ca v O N O > p C 7 O C ) � N O Nru O O L) p E Q Q -- 0 a LM a 9 0 o 0 °cn N N O V Q V) C V N p U D p + > N D o V 0 s . v -0�O0- QJ +, EF 2 E Q) O oQ U � � C Q C Q O oE p U OCID + O Q i Y O C C O cr- O • n 6 E 0 T � V z V T O O w O } ' pl LO � V 3 O +' N i N C O O -0 UN Ln Q) �O O O ° O O Q_ V E °> + O U V O Q N ,N Ul C U -0 °� O O .� O QJ a) Q+ N v C p 0 C � E Q N N c6 � ut L c O O Q ~ O Q kn Ln (D m p O z �J n O c~c ^ Q Q ) QCLp t v - O N C 0 0 0 N � ItT N 0) m CL m N O N T co Q) LL i O Q LAN C O1 LA D Ln f6 f6 V ro p & D u c O QJ c EF 2 O U � � C L" O Q Q Y O C C J O • n 6 E 0 T � V z V pl LO � V O [y O N p O V O IA O V C O QJ N co N C � N N c6 � ut O ~ O �J n O ^ f6 Q v C LA Lj- o o 0 0 0 N � ItT N 0) m CL m N O N T co Q) LL i O Q LAN C O1 LA D a �� s � U v C V E O 9 F U a, Qj O O N O •}, � < O1 N E y' v v N 6 C N 6 Q Q) (6 > O C V O O 01 Q Q O v N Cl V U) Q � C v �_ z Q � � V Z3 ` O z Q Q 3 °a 4 a o O O E O Ln O O O •� O -0 0 0O ` u E V s O its C ° -iZ3 s a � v Q o o a Z3 -C3 Q 3 U S •� O ,n Q Q�n B N N p N Q Q p i O a-' Q 9- p Q Ln O a p p v r S Q Lri in c N O L a O A O V N `o O� Q + V rzN v Qj • • • a �� s � U v C V E O 9 F U a, z x O nowituill", N U C — Q._ Q V p 0 N O +' + r6 O O ra > ,moi, +�-� 'n • N 0 E z to E cn QJ L51 N O N Q N C o vi E 2 m � '- }; a� O Q ,n v O -O vv O O N O a o 0- _ Ln = c z o g �CF- o .� E Q > C O Z E N O O V Q 0_ 0 Q om_ L i 0 ,�--� n +�i V C > D -0 � c6 U c6 O V 0 C) V +-' N O Q t5 4J > 6 Q Ln O N V Q p O 0- x 0- v O v N Q - O O X-0 n V v U Q V U O +� N -0 O p L Ol C > +cn .— Ln N > O Ol OC O Q OV O O O _ � O r6 OJ U v C V E O O O N O •}, � < O1 N E O V N 6 C N 6 Q Q) (6 > O C V O O 01 O v N •� V U) Q � C � �_ V �, .— o O O 4 o O O E O Ln O O O •� O -0 0 0O ` u E V O its C W NCID � a� C N V N Lin O Ln I Ln Ln � 6 o z s Qo a a 3 _v O a v 7 V N O= -;-v Qj cn V) ro n >, .O > -0 O = o O v 5 cu . o i v, V _ V ��Ln O 0 O Q> c •o c 0 0 .� o p z0 v 'N v > '3 c a v 6 u0 n a>i 1 C NLn L a) — N Q) Q C N aJ N 3 c6 O_ � v vl N m u �O E N O Q) + S Q) +r Q) U O a � V) CT C (D Q 1 C C � O a } Q E _0 -0 CIR u Q)C a Ln u o ate--+ u o�� o0 D- �'� v) i O � Q E E 0 a > , N a, Q) V V Ln a, y a — v U rz a LlO a) O c6 Q ''" N L O ~ N v ~ cu S D r6 x a) N -C O � O L Q N v O O Oc v � � c N Qj Q) 6 N O Q) + S N N U � � V) CT C (D Q 1 C C � O a } Q E _0 -0 CIR u Q)C C Q) Q Q aJ ate--+ u o�� o0 D- �'� v) i O � Q E E 0 a > , N a, Q) V V Ln a, y a — v U rz a LlO a) O c6 Q ''" N L O ~ N ~ cu S D r6 a x a) N -C O � O L Q N v O O Oc v � � c N Qj Q) 6 O °' p� Qu _ C S Ln o a v v v o Ln O u 6 i � O a �� O Q) � O a) •� � Ol 'N V) CT C (D 6 C C � O a } Q E _0 -0 CIR u Q)C C Q) Q Q aJ ate--+ u o�� o0 D- �'� v) Q O O N i -n v w E E 0 o '0 c V O O , N ° o Q) V V V V) — — •� —U C3) O Ol 'aJ a) O c6 p Q p uLE L c (a) -c Q) > ~ N a� n D r6 3 x a) N -C O L Q N in O O Oc v � � c a um a C''>-0 0) p a) L = =3 O O_ oG V -0 Q -Q C vLE p O v E O N C O a) > 5; O N a) V 0 W ill =3 aJ .N O O N N Q V C D W'7 0) c6 O U _ N co O p u o '� v > N O > v O LI) c LE o ° } V v Ln • E Y Ol U U E O 0 Q Q -C Ol L U N C V a% > c .V O p > V .� LEI p O u O V Q U O O � � V, v Ul C) Q .E 0 0 N (0 N 00 N ca cV6 N > } LuQj > (6 N N C + n O pl > O U c6 Q 0 +— st• Q) C > N •V Q — .O O N O .+ p— O O p c6 v > QJ pl +� + C m v-0 Q) 6 + a) p p 0 0 v a) E Q) Q c O= v a) . n u Q a) axi o axi o Q 3 > v > � o o LL t!1 0 0 0 0 += U` O c6 Q Ln C Q Q +� Ln V d Q V V 0 S a a NLn Q v . O O v O h O 6 Q O S� N Q N .Q5) N Q v Q N N Q Q Q .al U L1 v v a vii S N 16 I N Q vii Q Ln I -P 17 Z3 Ln u C +-� � +� O N � V C Q C N c6 t6 — N +� +� �--' L r6 + '............... LA a) c O ca Z p N Q Q a L 'N c> •� p Q v 3 C + c>6 L N N C N al vi U C V O O C N a) o c Q n CC p C—: .— p c� p p v .� a) c v v v L a LE ti Ln Ln E zzz o a v o 'o a a Ln aLn Ln Q a L Ln S Q Q L � � Q Q aN v u O v LA LA N c O v O N V O Ln i O- p i O L c6 O v L v Q+ O 'v O c Q Q O N f6 O N i V f6 Ln 0 4jv, •i Q c p> Q ,N O O T VI O Q + O O+ N N N Q r L N v Vi c V +� + v, O N N d O� E `� V um m 7 N O Q j c Q i n pv ON > Q E '+ Oc c co C c> N p ro E LD mE Lu OV E p NN c _0 N N 4j O N O O + N Q a > O N V) Q p + N N Ln - _ aci ` o V, c 3 a p a� LA, W �, cc > ° Q O W Q) v O O > O + v, O + E Q O Ln v c N o O 6 O � O EN > N c O + X Q N Ln p IDI v, N [V6 c -C c 6 v, O Ol O O N V [6 N T u � � � -o O c c o .� v '� v o .E o `� a, O v �' v o a O -E o v p ° c �° p 6 p CO c c O V T V .O .� O c p + EL O 0) -C N O U Q Ol c O N c v a O > 7 > O � V Q V v o Q C) up 3 Ln m v Q) c O0 a) o } O N v, N O U ra u 0 O O� c o ° N a E Q) 0 .} N - V Q) Q V_ > M L a1 1 6 � O L 6 O c N Q o Q v O LA LA N c O v O N V O Ln i O- p i O L c6 O v L v Q+ O 'v O c Q Q O N f6 O N i V f6 Ln 0 4jv, •i Q c p> Q ,N O O T VI O Q + O O+ N N N Q r L N v Vi c V +� + v, O N N d O� E `� V um m 7 N O Q j c Q i n pv ON > Q E '+ Oc c co C c> N p ro E LD mE Lu OV E p NN c _0 N N 4j O N O O + N Q a > O N V) Q p + N N Ln - _ aci ` o V, c 3 a p a� LA, W �, cc > ° Q O O vi v O + cn V) N Ln v c � o O -Q) � O EN O_ N � Ln v Q m Ln p IDI O } c p Q � � � O Q L N V [6 N T u � vO -o O c °1 o .� v '� v o .E p `� -Cp � �' v s a O v � ° D p 6 p CO c U O _ V O .O .� O c d + EL O O O Q E Ol NV Ln V v a v O N O 6 V v O E > �1 3 v c Q s ,� O0 o } O N v, N O 3: O u i Q cis c O O 0 .} N - V Q) Q V_ N V M L a1 �' � � O L '7 o c N Q c - v U p CL LA LA N c O v O N V O Ln i O- p i O L c6 O v L v Q+ O 'v O c Q Q O N f6 O N i V f6 Ln 0 4jv, •i Q c p> Q ,N O O T VI O Q + O O+ N N N Q r L N v Vi c V +� + v, O N N d O� E `� V um m 7 N O Q j c Q i n pv ON > Q E '+ Oc c co C c> N p ro E LD mE Lu OV E p NN c _0 N N 4j O N O O + N Q a > O N V) Q p + N N Ln - _ aci ` o V, c 3 a p a� LA, W �, cc > ° Q O O O + cn V) N N c � O O � � v N ® E v Q m Ln p IDI 4jO O Q Q � � � O Q L N V [6 N T u � .0 -o (LS c °1 +, o .� v LA > O p .E c -Cp �' a o � ° D 6 3 v, vY` O _ V O .O O O ® + EL O N O Q NV Ln O c O V o a N O 6 V v O E > �1 3 v 4j o V z 3 o O V N v, N O — c6 O u i Q cis c O O v .} N - V Q) Q V_ N V M N 3 �' LI) Q O O_ O 0 - i F - LA LA N c O v O N V O Ln i O- p i O L c6 O v L v Q+ O 'v O c Q Q O N f6 O N i V f6 Ln 0 4jv, •i Q c p> Q ,N O O T VI O Q + O O+ N N N Q r L N v Vi c V +� + v, O N N d O� E `� V um m 7 N O Q j c Q i n pv ON > Q E '+ Oc c co C c> N p ro E LD mE Lu OV E p NN c _0 N N 4j O N O O + N Q a > O N V) Q p + N N Ln - _ aci ` o V, c 3 a p a� LA, W �, cc > ° Q O 0 0 11 N 00 00 (6 M N O N T co 2 QJ i O Q N c p c D O + cn V) N O O c N N E O m Ol IDI 4jO Q N c6 L N V [6 O .0 -o (LS .0 .� > O p .E c -Cp �' 6 V v, c O aj v c Q O V N O v .Q O E > �1 O 4j o V O O O •� v E.0 v -7- u i Q cis - V Q) Qj �, 3 �' i Q c o c v O p -Q O _ N co N V �1 d � m v, O= vi V V ca .- N v, N Qj ice, • 3 N � �O i p O +' Ln N Q O L N V 6 cOi, O N v Q N _0Q N aN O O u - V p V 0 U O Q V C7 Q (6 r m V O n n N N N c Q O C .� �- +; v c O c U LA 0) c c N O p1 -W O V) c (1) L/) ttz FD °' +�-� p p o V -0 °' +�-� L 0 0 11 N 00 00 (6 M N O N T co 2 QJ i O Q N c p c D 0 0 Ln rn +� N N = V N 00 +� E +� N V o O co O +' +� v u � N � N �, v O � ffiQ �O p X_ O Q p dj N° (6 0 0 0 -)Ln v ° ° o D a N o �, v p Z � N +� U O Q Q° N � m N QJ v � CD N O °� °_ o a o °; °� o o o i O +�Ln +�-� m 7 E vpi cub F 01 'r6 = ° m E •`n Ln Ol V p V +� �_ } in Ln N+ Q 0 Q Q(D O •O O �......... p N Q � N +��' co N pl N ° E 4J C Q .�' o - -CO_ Q O_ V m L/) O cn O u) Z36 Q E O O 41 E O u O O� O V O � O -13 O O Q a v Lni v � v V Ln Z vj Q Z Qj 6 U vn -U N Q Q > __ -0 4 O -C ET C C v 4J > C -_r6 C p m n '� p a L ru n > N pl `� Q H p C) O Z ' o + L° Q o Q= n L O V LLiLn FY a Q u m W p N u OVF v U) N E O O �O p '� p u(D 0 N Q E �O v Ln Q) i N> O in O 6 v— �, V O N `n N v a cv N 6 Q Q p> v O 6 Q-0 p° 61 N m u s— v 6 v> u+ v v ca v Q 6 p >i a+ O -r3 110- 1 Q ED ON Q O r3 -T,5 i v Q.) Q O O N N' 1 '+, O -a Q Q Q Q ''-� Q O N O Q-5Qj N a O S Q Q p Q) N u > W U u a _ °�' -T3 Q) zz� o v o Q o°° a a In v v' , o o Q o QL)O O O O 2 Q Q Q N n v O QL) Q3 Q U > Q U Ln Q +5., Q _Q Q -12 Ul � N U M 00 M O Ln LI)sv LO Q)LO o Q N L> �' o= +-- v r6 c O O i � U (6 N +-� E N co � Q N N V L, N O L Ln N ~ _0� 3 D Z C O L Ov N N Ln O i ra Q O 6 3 i vn a � O> 3 O E co a N u 'n v a o o a o Q �> .o a 3.= o �, v p U• V M �, m m L + Vl Vl Z .0 C (D N In C E +' t0 VI } QJ C L z p p N v r6 a r6 C 3 3 �— ° O L C p O (D Q Q C Q +, C Q c v a, Ln v) m pl v i Q Q O u¢j +Q ° °Qj Qj L ° qj Q)- Q Y °��' y �� � Q) v- Q) -Z o v S Q° U v cL a U N Q i v Ln 6 O N m V ' a) E LA N C + r6 O cn O C CD M Q °� N O > m M '+ Q m O v Q) Qm C Q)n n O v C Ln U C C N QJ V C O O Ln E m N O N C tD V N C v C Q aC-' +-� Nlu >c p c L- O p N N N ra N U C +-' C +' Q) O C N O Q i Q t > > + N V -6 v O n 6 Q+ C Q N m O ' Q v N c6 C n N Q1 O E N N Q) n> m N Q v p N Ln N O `n+ pl N C C �1 `� O in v C �l C cn U, >, +� Ol O C � m mE in � }, N +� Q N .� _Q j v Q C +- N Q) > '� > v Q v C N O ra O C 7+ O Ln pl X N 00 -6 V Q c6 C ra Q N CD V) H Q Q ra m Q V) O � •Qj Q �, � v� N a Q Q i 6 O Fri 0 Q N i •� L a iS" d1 Ci 4i rz Ln Ln Q .� S Q- •i a v •O v Q:3 In i ` S v +S S v S O Q u S u m v z >1 a O v 4'15 > N a)O Q) N LU V N M = C6 C N -0� •— O V N Q X n5 '0 C d -0a) L a) N uJ Q N +' Q E C6 ca O Z +� 1-6 ,} '+ p O O p V) a) ^ V Q Q a, o L Q p CO n3 -6 OO C C_ +_0 m� —cc � L > n3 a) (6 Q) (D G C ~ O N N L •N Q N U T Q .� •� m ca L '> O p N O N 0 •} N n V O V 2O ' C n5 v 2O \ Cp 2 � � T Q) � � Q) Q CO -0 Q co c�ii In m O Q Ln d Q a) Q E Q C u -,Z3 O � � o O Q N v O OU w N Q Q O Q O u � L O 3 N O N r3) N L v � U In a) N Q) i Q) v o N Qj N O i o L N O + N O p w O Q i � v = QO Q vii Q O w O C N O • v al O Q O + � L O O Q Q r3) N L v � U In a) N Q) i Q) v o N Qj N O i o al S� O Q N O w O i � QO i a v VI � O a Q v v a ° Yo o s s a v a a n) Ln O C N O • v al O Q O + � U Q Q n c6 N 6 L v � U In a) N Q) i Q) v o N Qj N O i o al S� O a w O C N � U Q Q n c6 L U In a) N Q) i Q) v o Q Q L v � N v -0Ln > C a a) a� a, OQ 3 co •Q-0 F=3 N n5 C O a) m -C n3 ID Q 3 o a Ln o Q > ++ Q) a) a) 5 Q oE Q)v Q In -0 -0 V 4? m -0 -0 � U U S v Q Q L � o al S� a w O i QO � O 6 v -o a ° r s � Isom R N a 1111 O a (a) cp v � N O � = aJ M a a, V � 0 O E 0 Q a, O M Ol T O �•3 � oma. (3) u u (11 O n U U � Q Q (DQ d N T Q Q a) > > N c- V 111 O u .L Q N N p Q 61 O Q p w 0 O co � N M N -a O -0 c — pO M u u aim Qa)� LA -0_� T a) � Q) aJ Q c 3 a:3 n3 QJ > � Q M g +-' a-- Ol c T V N O Q n3 M p + N N � c uj LA T Q d vO c a, M -0 c >, O Q c c c Q c O d OU (a) CL L Q 0 u T (a) _ V c c EFEm O 3 (1)d O oe� O L a (a) cp v -0 -0 Q) E O M a a, V � 0 O E 0 Q a, O M Ol T O �•3 � oma. T :Ll E O u (11 O n U U L X Q Q (DQ C C _O a) a) L d Q) > > N c- V 111 O u .L N N p Q 61 O O) p w co � Qa v 0-)O V � — pO M u u aim Qa)� LA -0_� T a) � Q) aJ Q c 3 a:3 n3 QJ > � Q 0 � � O n5 p '> + V p U Ol In Q U a) U c p M Q cO v v) U 'Z - c O M w Q Or!0 0 — X O Q- 0 O O D Q) + 0 C c X ,C Mc6 u ' U � c6 H Q O cQ 61 Q v vi Q) c O -0 O N O a� N X_ O aJ N .� LA 0 0 N CV rn N E °�' O O o, O N c c N N Nu .� N + @ N p .v > OU E N O N O pl N— C O Q N N + c N Q c m n N Q) O N -0 + p1 O a '� +' c6 QJ C s U C O N Ol 0� :; N C a E N + +� N N— N C C ca t cn '+� QJ T +� Q vi N � �n 0 C Q > Q m O � 'n +' O O *' — E CT O c N 6 Q LA v' L O Dl 0 d N C Ln > C O p O Q� N w _ + Ll Ln 0 L m -0 m La Q O N L t® c CO c >O O Q Ln `n > Ln C N c � N h6 LA O U v p } .� Q 'N \ [6 C Q QJ Q C i U Q C6 '�, C C N YyQ�J QJ m _ N C N N Q cn M Q C Q� }' C • �, U i H N Q C Ln �' N C L .� N C n~ d C p_Q 0 C �} � dS in + 6 0 N O nn V it .Q U � N Q O (D V) G ; .� N Q) m O v O n Ol c ~ 04 Q N N p 0 V) �1 q� cn aS' O Q O C+ N 0 Ol v Q Q O > O n U a Q > O N ra �S O c N Q `� O Q) 07 + Q �' O O E> n> N �' N Op N t N p O- Q) c N m O E 0 E Ol n C r6 I OU QI p n d w d J Q O— — � v N V v N cn m V i + m m N m E a E O _x O� a p R a m � O@ Q _0 O LD a N m N N w M Ln v O O T Q c N F --E r6 �O N LA 61 o O Q+ >, m C 0 .— in cb N O t 4J -0 0) m C > 0 Z O � E O 0) +—> O V) N •� .� V U m C •C O L/)O E •+' c ro c p U 'M Ln O N C vi r6 > N >_ N *' OJ T pl v OJ LA > c D _9 Ln N p N N O Q v + 'D -0 — v O > *' 7 C N = +' 0 `n _ O � •Q O O � aL C �l O V+ v N L Q O 0 _ M `n O L + C N N O L in o= o� E v Q 3�; a, 0 O > Ln Q Ln 01 Q v co L O p o O Q O .� \ N C o C 01 E 41 a� m a' 3 m E (D � � N U � C > O c C > � n Q � L �° r6 � FA o Q,v Ln N A o u v oc ° n d N O 1 ea 6 n O O O (D M N in � Ln E p n c v c L o a� p S2 20 +-+ Qi '� N �' T ,0 .+� > •�A Qj 16 •uf V in p I c O 0 Q �' V Q Q a-' L! a) O N Ol LE O V Ln in O c U c O rn u N C N t v a� Ln rn O Lf1 Ln Ln D -0 cLA L � + O V O Q N+ L + L O N C N ' N LI) Q +-' Q) N L .� O Q) N Ln O CL -- O N L N t O N N N O E +J O ''. N •+' C O N in Ln .O O p C N v V_ N N O Q V LA Q Q QN O O D 0 0 0 N T= N -6 o `� O Z >> pl N Ln m O �_ a M •+� M v C — -6 -0 cc u C Qi cn m c N �x W N .o Q V qZ O _� i ,Q L QQ) -6 N p (D Ln (D .V) +' N 3 v N N N z N E aui ca a' O a>, U O Q 3 O 6 N pl Ln a-' + � N O + O Uv +� ra -6 - — + V O T 6) V)_ = m V v O C s N v O O v O:tf M v, Z;Q N Q O V N OU Ln OJ O •V L O O 0 0l Q O CD O X N N > O _ N C _ -6 L O C N m O — C N Q C Q� > v Q m U O LA p ' v, v N C C m n + Ln O QJ + Q CLn O C N L �O c6 in N T N C) }' O1 u O u u vNi C �^ 7 Q) Q tin >, +- c6 V, 4'1:; E N O C 00 N O O N E O* U _T a N > + + p Q) O O 7,D Ln Ln E Q .v O v N-0 N L Q E Ou O @ E o v v E aS _ `° a, m O - 01 p d O N+ Q N= O N i N Ou _ O O Q O Q o N o _ V O1 •� .� V u VI-- Q E v L V , E_ Q) s o O Co c a) oc cn � .. o a-) U . � E p> -F- Q) E N c6 o Q v N p - E v > X •N Vl V v v o_ N c6 o N L tj N+ -�; O Ln Ln Q� Q� Q Q E a, (3) O 0 C Ln O �� r6 '� N Q -0-6 v O O- � p > O (1)Q 6 N 3 ° v aEi 2 L v 3 c o c6 _ Q E °' m ~ m m c:ru Ln N O r6 m� Ln— > N N -0> _ v E o O E Q v, }, V) L +- dJ E ruv 5 p u +, E O m Q� _E r6 'E *n v v Iluuiumumumumm '— c6 p p C L r6 +� ro +� � v p L _ _ V �_ 61 > O — 7 N v o s Ln + V7 v E N C �, o o LL, o l/'1 E N u - } m E Q+ LQ m m QLn .- E E m E O o v, N - > m •�1 V V um S c6 E v, O i >-0 > O �O = Q N v -0 7 4J O �' IIl pl `� Cl) o Q Q c m z Q o E o E a, o gum um �'v m O v � p O v V m Q UJOi in Oi � oO rB Ln a'"' N o Q) c O U r6 Q Q a v= � E O � Ln uumumuu •� v, N ZSl C N O 0O 0 E O N mmmmm '� N O a Ql 6 Q �^ � ro m N ra Ln o u v a� s t V) o c E o a' a, v v uumumumumumw p — 0 N cn _ i c6 }' Q +' v,Ln i Y Q v C °' ^ M p E Q E Q > O N N (D o a) L O � m a) � �_ E � � 3 a) O -a 0) � � = � au Q� >� N +V- N N V ru m Q L u vl O > c6 +�-� Vl �L p �, +o V v N + pl u u — mmm 3 O N� o 0 Q F - N _ V � Q E} N > V Q+ p vi = - = E 6l WN � � � v O � N z U V >� Q u � 6 O V O Ln p U i } v O Q v a, a, O0 Q- ._ rr, 111) v a c o c= E - -C Q Q- c Ln - a Q ru 5 M � . � - - - 't D — L X p m O LD L Ou .' `.."`.�...... N z (3) o o J 41 OL o p r` f O ,, Q)XY r u 4, m LL // O O Ln NO ✓ Q V N p V > 12 U Q ' N O �6 .c 6 pl +' / O �- 'CS O m O 0 4 d `C E o 0 °� j /! �°Z) n Q - E Qao pV / � ..... T 4 a 6 6 N v o v (D >1 C) 0') Cu N C v N_ i CJ CO O 6 v Q o 7 O> > O N p Q p M 3 C Q Q 6 O O Q C+ w N ^ p Om Ln n O c Q CJ C O Q O p N C pl p QJ — vi cV + N N Z7l i T_ +J C N - CU C N Q — } c 3 v C ~ a� + + 'u O m m umON � p to raW p > Q T w Ln Lu V O' cm 4 --C) CDN 0E p O po -0 O •— O = N O m � QO I_0 -0 M V p Q �N Q L +OCD � 0 V)vN = C— . p a Q) O OO U O C Q) C °6 N N OV O � p p N i u >, C N aQV V O p� N _ p > m N E o E u CO > O O p O V p + Qo O C OO O Q� v+ Q1 U E , C 6 —_ Q O N E —_ OJ L O 6 Q '> Q E Q N u N a p rr) O Z3 LE c- —U> E c6 O LU O p u cn m p � l N OO _a) vO c6 O _ w LU O m C p O u O 'cC U E m 6 a O c L n p n �cFji E C Q cC v CQ, > Z N > O°° D 0 0 ..... ..._ .... ..... ...._... M Q M LU Z E E E E N ID CD (ZD CD aDp CD w o O o ca LL - X= E E E E Ln Ln N ',, l0 Q M rn ro C = X E E M 6l ',,, co Q C LLA J a) 00 0 .. _. .. _. .... ..... .... _... cn H T T >, T pl l7 O O O O co 0o n Q0 a l7 Q m V w M C N a) N O Q aj — , v O0- EQ0 > Ln v O > X EO E (a) a) L O O M Ov LL +, C +� c6 O ' O Qc6 Ol n5 4J C E > LL- u — w O :3 N O t — 0 O N Ol +�- N N •� M m in .� O Q)i N i m O v U O vN Y O p ++ + m ^ 2:'v E -0 OV 4) vii � a)vi^ v a) O O —_ + Ln > a> t� m p +� u v Q O pl p G) > m E � N Qv v O Q p Q) O — c0 `n Q Q— J i O " Q Q O Ln Q L a) 0 Q) a) 0 Q Cv C Q a) �l > O m Q) r6 m .� O C V1 O +-+ � m U +, i . >� V) a1 0- Q) +-+ + a) - m a) L c Q) Q) a) N O _O + n O pl N m Q E N > E Q) :EE m +' O N Ol O l9 Q C m M a) L L Ln CD x 0 CD Q O O .N c n5 O O1 a) O >, a) E '+ in a) O � n O C N O N m v c v cLn O Q m F a) = '� v 'a) a) •X n5 n5 a) Ln � v aC) > Q + + Q) Ln ( .} a) V) C � �rl V m Q v Q C�C C p a--� M c Q) c Q) L Ln V 0 E D Q) -0 Q) 0) = V) Q) 0) 0) Ln Q) Q) (D E E W D E Ul cu um) m LA (D N c6 4J E 2:1 Q) m U) cu ;—-0 cz I L+mon E E C) I0 — X -0 (D m > - -C Ln 2 CD- o 0) 6l (D i 0 -C E 2 QJ V Ln U) ca Ln LA E E < o CZ M- 0 Q) -L- co r\j ry) E 0 �5 a CD0 v Ln Q) 0 Ln m Ul Q) > -0 Q) Q) L') 0 Q) V) D- O 0 o E -o 2 2ED 0 E Q) Q) Q) Q) V) w E (>D -0 VI 0 L7) Q) CM: CU) LA (D LE C,6 Ln -C Q) cz 0 > C: ru C� 0 c: '- ua) c LD 0 u u U Ln o (D u M 0 E - (D 06 Q) o0 m tb 0 ca uQ) N o 0) V) m u > m 0 OD G) Z3 LL. r6 Q m v) (D =5 L/I u c >1 > 0 m Q) NQ) E O= cQ) = c LE N m E ED Q) NC .21 00 U) 0 =5 o 0 0) 06 Cc Q) 0 Q) Q) co E - a-) :tm� m -Fu CU 0 U Q) 3: .— 4,� U0 F= u c 0 ru W 0 to to d -0 0 cl- w _0 Ln 0 k, u Z5 0- E (D 0 0 CL a) c 0 o 0 m 0 8 u 0 -C C, -Co QJ0 u -C > 0 0 < 0 0 E D ƒ / E R \ Lel 0 0 N + oN ,n _ @ Ln m v Lo LEE Ln N v M O O C Q CO 4, - p m +� +' ::5• LO O O O O E m _ 3 v _ O a a a a O O N N N+ + + + to } +� p 0+ 6 N Q Q Q QN vi in +' `n OU) N v 0 H N o O 0 0 O J + p �_ r6 N N 0 O U UU U DE 1 6i H (6 +� (Dl .O W — u Q Y s Q) v _O H O Q1 - O O N Q O M G) 7 v Q N O 0 N -6 Q O v — O N = + O O f � 0 L La N lfl _ �''� QO N N v= N +� v � > ^ 7D- c6 Q - p - Q) p N -6 OC m � o oo p > N s a� Q I� O >, Q1v+ _j ZT 0-C }' o O N Ln _0 � in a.) v v E O N E _ N _ C O 0 O O -41 O O O l0 p ',. oo D C:Ln O 0 0 0 N O v p .O a 0l ,-C o N Ln N Ln N oo N m N Q, — + p t Q +� C > + N rn rn oo M0 o Q v j : rn M Lfl m Q) •N (a = i z c0 r-- 6i o0 v) + O v O 6 W N N N m O p N > s _ J + + v O ro 6 v Q W caN N O 0 v ^ m— M �• 0 EO N Q) pl 0 Q v W N O +-' U ` O �O 0 N @ N to Ol Ln m > Q m V 0 W • p ^ C � Q 'N E O N aL-- �--� E ) ++ 0 E u, 0, v s O N ,� O a, O s o v ro 6 'M v a v) a U E v, - o0 00 p ` 4J E O Oo E + L p o N w ~ c = E LA o v o °' } E O o 0 0 o N F E p O' N 0 u ~ M (D Ln m U 4-O 61 M v+ o Vv) N 0 s m s 'Ln v m 0 Ol � N Q) E _E � v N W m N O 0 J = E E E _00 rn N E E v Q) o O M I� 6l •L o W Ln M O O O p M > v 'a-=� p ro p (Dv v, i } + o � V c a� _ a E — a' Ln -Co O O 0 M N0 ~ -0 O 0 N Ln -o Of 5 C •O L c Ol ro m 2 + } co 01 N > v Q O v W ol M V w Q GD V 0 W '>, ro� X o C L O Q � m _0 Q OV +�-� > O cLL- m Y Q N �' •j O Q N �T) m T Q O Q E 01 5 O > Q Q 3 > N Q) � � = O u E = Q) 'A O p Q V c 0 N Q O O c O N 0+ 6 Q Q Q O a'' + � Q V N -p 0 N V -0 Q Q Q aL"' N _ N Q N U > O 0- N Q L.I.J N N > 5 0 N Q C C Q O O O Q C C L Q 1 V •� 3 O > r6 > ° Q Q LA + p Q C r6 Q E Ln o 3 0 o o R ° o a Q L N N O c co V N 0 Q L L O O +� Q E _� Q Q N Q Q C C Q N " Q .- O Q N w Q + Q Q Q + > L C Q T N Q O V -C �' rp Q > Q D Q ca (a V ' ra L O Q co Q Q L Q }O + N Q Q O Q @ Q Q > N 0 O Q > N si O Q n N r6 > :E N Lo O Q Q + + Q >Q m _0 c 0 d -0 V Q�J c V Q C -O = Q O r6 Q N O QaL--� Q> > Vp O Q N N unO Q Q Q C �• V 01 O =3CD)i>� — O m O Q 0 M V O O L> Q O - > Q Q Q a--+= m o+ O N Q L Q Q `� 0 Q +� > Q� N N M Q N + Q L _V LE a--� 3 LI N I} ° _Q 0i pi 3 Q Q° v M Q QN C N U p M Q Q Q Q Q .� m O N U + -0 Q c6 Q C -C>, Q Q Ln Ln mcQ Q Q c N Q Q D1 -0 U *� +N o V L7 Q O> N Q+ O 0 Q Q E _0 N L C -0 Q -0 p N n Q— c Q _0 'N m L p N Q p 3 Q v m-0 > E O ai Q N E L Q m N Q > Q 6 O Q +L L ro Q s O V) 0-0 Q O Q N O Q Q 0 V +� N L Q O a"' N +_ Q ° N a""' — (6 o s N Q S L l0 O pl ' Q Q a �O O o m O r6 Q + N S Qj Ln 0l N N N 0 Q O• Q V ate--+ C m M Q m N N E Q 0 Q O m Ol > 0 ca vi OL E o 0O � N m 0 �_ N v 0l O — L � N X +) + r E— x w Q n O o O-0 0 Q -0 >O =� Q Q D N 3 + N r6 Q U V r6 Q C Ly O N ON ca ^ Q C r6 Q_ OL Q� Q Q5 O L 3— •� u Q � u M Q Q * O � V� O N 3 �, m_ Q O �-0 Q Q 3 O QFo Q rV Q 01 � 3-0 + O O N ° � > � C 3 Ln - - a, N n 7 30 s ° V v m LnQ .� .� .� a� CL m o) o w E o v o °�' ° o o� 0 0 g� a-5: -Z Q ami 0) � °o' - N -0 C — -0 V N N 0 Q N -0 L N Q 0 0) Q V — I 0 4- 0 00 N M o LO n m N O N T co L. i O Q N C- D D R 0 o O N 0)O _ i T Ol �1 co m p Q) LO Q N C p N N � � :F. =1 = U C Q C6 —O O d 0 O N �l N V ate--+ T p N m Q) Lr� Q pl N > = I u u O Q p D � v o a Ol O _0 -0 u L O � c O N v N 6 + Q N Ln iT i — 0 Cl) Q > OZn p O v C N 6 i + 0 N �..r N S S a✓ O • i M N � v > O 6 N N v � p m p O p N �.� Ln N v N O p Li- Qp Ln Ln N 6 = N p =3 O Q O p O-Cp m o v N a� a✓ � + a✓ Q -C O L N a✓ O c6 (Da a u N p N Q aV- m . -0 c6 E U_ c c6 N m N i N N E O .D �1 .L O O Ln E Q v N a 4 O Mp O p -0 Q) O N N N v)T Q .O 2 O m N O O Q O O Q > O C Cw N 3 Q) O L Z3 .Q M Q N L vi 0 0 ° '� � a� ® _ > N c + 3 x m Y .N N N (6 f6 N C QJ C > � L J N L L + Ln N Q aN� O a� O O O vi O O Q Q L u T L ri C OLn T — p a O O 2 U C p O a >+ p� C u Ln p a) 6 OJ > } C a) m C Ln N Q .L� jo O O ca 0) C m 't / \ J * / 0 / � \ / & J\ \� = o / /2 2\ _/ = 7 / / \ / ƒ / _ o e 2 / 2 0 0 / \ \ A k 0 / f / / E � 2 \ g « ' e cz G . ° 2 % o / S PG u a � /� 7 7 y e 2 / / / 7 ƒ EZ ƒ / ƒ LA.2 0 o ƒ a Ln \ 0_ j \ E / 0 Q 0 $3 LO Q � E � 2 �a C) (D 4.- 0 LO 0 LO M n 0 0 O Q) O Q) v — N u N Cfl Cl) (1) v LO N 6 Q E p c >> F O N n3 u) > p .— 'vl u Q (6 Ln n3 > a-- V Q) Q Q) r6 m Q) p QO LA ° u LA pl O C o N_ n3 u Ln �6 7 N C Ln � ' X o Q) i U C f6 O U ELA p Q _ R3 of — pl U n3 c- O N L) ra LALn u Z Q .23 u m C Oo -C N u Q v } + ^ E -Cm LA u v Ov oE C = 6 — O n Q n Q) N Q Q) +� U 2 > Q1 N 7 Q) 7DC to 7 Q) Q) > O pl 7 0-0 �. +, .V N Q ut Q O O E — 0 CD- N O Q) Q Q N Q +' O M�ALn 3 o Q Q) Q) Q) ° Q) p Q, Q N �_ >) Q u >, L c6 E Q Q) p QX + Q) Q �, cn V Q V n5 oC n Q) QJ > Ln vi vi `� p C O O p __ pl C — ro Ln Q) in c6 v Q) c6 c6 m C '+ r6 + r6 }' O N p -0 -0 in Q) • C a-% N 7 vi i a-- >) p N O i 2° E > °' N u ' .� 0O Q N O o i,- N cn p Q) r6 O E cn `� 0 f °° Q 7-=u =3o 7 O V O — in v — ?:= Q) > i+ O� n >) u OC -0l/ 7 Q) 7 7 aJ i `6 o ' s — O * j a m �-j O QJ 7 0) 0 _0 Q) Q Q n5 o Q o v c IA v Q O s s Q U M O m EO N c6 7 p n3 m N 7 m N Vi U p a--% vi 7 �1 U ' ut >, p N > E E 7 Q) c6 p O N C O E @ Q) +' Q) 71 7 QUj Q) d Ln p +� E Q) N 7 'n Q) O 7 O C O O n3 Q 6 O O v t9 > v E of 7 O+ +- O cub 7 Ol C 7-0 U N �, 7 N E �—�' �' N L ut u u � r6 L W Q) 7 n3 V v Ou a 'n Q) + +�-+ D + LL Q H E = Q) Q) Q) O O E O- u O C 61 p i N +) n5 l6 v .O c6 >) N - E NE CL O — Ln c6 f6 N O N O p >J Q m+� 7 Q p Q a) uLLA �) 7+ to Q n n n O . p a) pl v >� oC Z 7 u (DL C c O c Ol C c6 > m Q d u v +' >, Q 'u , mLn >J N Ln E .� U V O p c O +`> O E N > + Q T O u u Ou Q+ -0 m � H d Q cin d m 9 4.- 0 LO n 0 4- 0 E 11 00 '10 LO Qj 0 0 Q N O Q) > Q) Q) C) _0 03 Cu 4-j 4-3 M ra 4J 4J 7�2 > u — 'fC 0 - fu rn (D O Q) E /, j m3: ul Q) 0 E —Q) < > (D 2 -0 a, c) Q) (x -o IGI I, �6 —Q) Q) ro (D Q) < 0 T T Di a cu V) "I C) ............................ w c c m co U) viLN QQ) Q) (D U C) Ln (a) Ln C 0 (a) Ln U Q) (a) 0 = u Ln Q) 47 U (D U W (1) u c R3 C2- CZ) L/) M a) > CD Q) o 4 Ln (a) LI) 0 —Z, L E Q) (DQ) 3: o — co E L) C) -C c 0) — L c: C- o o Q) 0 Q) -C (D Q) c U) QU) uQ) o Q) Q) E ,:; CL CD 0 Q) Q) (D Q) Q) Q) Q) CD > Q) Q) -0 Q) 0 E 3: ) - 0 Q) Q) > Q) Q) Q '.2 Q) -0 (D 0 Q) Q) > o — rn Q) Q) G) 0 c E Z3 Q) C\j Q) C Q) Q) Q) 4,f CD _0 u — > Q) 0 -0 M 0 :t, Q) 0- Q) a) m Q) Q) Ln u uq 0 0 0 D- C) _0 = — Q) o 0 c u Z) > .0 E o6 0 Ln (D (13 E 0 —7' v) a) 0 E (D V) 4Z; E o6 -0 u 0 (D Ln u = c — — o 0 Ln o6 ly� D L 'C—zE3 - 0 E (D x LL) (D E Q—) ) 0 E LD E Q 0 u Q) Ln 0) Q) Ln CD U u =5 Ln —5 Ln -Se > r-- Ln E u (D M j < 02 0- Ln in > 3: 8 o cz M Ln L/I 6 — E >, - I-- m ul Q) - " �: co 0 0 0 0 - L u� E < Z5 m 0 -0 — co E • o o a a LJ C: 01 Q 0 0) o =3 m Ln W 0 u u Q) u 0 > < ru L/) M U) rn -0 > Q) V 3 0 4_ 0 Ln C3) LO 4 w. A s ow ,m,. ✓ F / F i - _ .t u a Q) < co a M vvi O (1) + p — +' p oDL N p L z 0 V p v v v -C c L +-- (L) �O a T LA cp o O x Q v + -0 - O T v ] 0 -O - N N E Cc _v - v Q m V @ _O V c V O E G) � Q O D 7 Q 3 .O N Om 0 Ln -0 p Q n cu i C O +a N pO E C Z3 p O L Q) O Q 0_ vi () n (1) Q O c6 c6 cp + Q) I M, N Ln E O Q) LAu U U m m W OL LP Ln =3 (V 0 T + O OU L n v Q O Q) V Ul -0 Q) i C O pO C L Q) 0_ CU (1) i Q) Q) O @ Qj N Q) U v) Q) U Q) + VO C: O Q) n > u c Q) � Q > Q Q � O L') V) Q) Lr) C i Q U m -C O ~ 3 c O `nN a) Qi T O `� (U X O -'0) E ® O — c O O O Q C� C Q _ N I M, N Ln E O Q) LAu U U m m W OL LP Ln =3 (V 0 T N CL J w L!" w J 7 w 7 w J f D Q = Q) 0) 2 -6 — vi C Q) N U > O Ol -0 N Q) Q M Ol 6 Q O C C O Q) > 0) +' Q) 6 Q) �6 L) L) + > O '+ 0J of Ln Q Q EO W u U LJ O CZM D � E Ln Q! m U OO �j 00 O Q) t Q) N U Q) } Q) m Q) N @ Z i CD- M N Ln u N �YJ a 4 Q) Q) _0 N NN Q) Q) Q) .+ _v O m '� N QJ E Q) O N N Q O Ol �Ln � u cn N m p n O N +� Q) O — +) Q M M 3 i L C — c G Q) L � 0 O � O Q 71 + Ln Q) a Ln N u O O Ln N Q } Q) Q Ut V) v LA v Q Q) �-- v E O > Ln Q) C ro m 3 a Lin V Q) c O Q)7D — Q) N LA E E Q) LA N N Q Ln cn c6 C N O Q N N M Q) p +� u Q) _ Q) E } 72 •� 2 LT- E O O > 0O -LOA Q) Q) O u V Q) 0- N L = m Q) -0 +>' O Q) = N NN Q) Q) Q) .+ _v O m '� N QJ E Q) N O u 'LA O N u N m p n O Q) i co i i O O i U N a Ln N u O O Ln N Q n �, `� E Q Ut � > v Q Q) �-- v E O > Ln Q) C ro m a O Lin Q) O u c O (D — N LA -0 � LA N N Q C O O Q c) Q) o C�mfm Q) Q) E u •� X E O -LOA E O •� L 2 Q) N u Q) > Q) T c6 Q O W Q) O N E MO-) p N p O N O L) O m v N > O E Q) N @ O O 0 2 > Q) EE V1 U E Q O Ln aJ Q) u @ � un Lnv Q) > O V O 0 0 U Q Ou Q) O Q) NQ) O> oO N '� N QJ E Q) N O u 'LA N u M Q) co i i O O i N u O O Ln N Q n �, `� E Ut >, v N O + > O Q) C O u O � � N O Q C O O Q c) C�mfm Q) Q O •� N ra N •� L 2 Q) N u Q) Q) T c6 Q n5 Q > p N v a Q) O O) Ln LE o Z3 p o s Z -0 -Fu-6 N N s N O M Q N O r74J pl O -p '> Q) :3 C a N Ol Q) co v lJ O O +� C_ O n3 u p= O Q) O Q O > + a p 'N Ol — O ) N _0 � O N N n O Ln Ol N O_ O Q) C O Q Lj r6 + CO Q) 6 .� V c6 Q) O ra Ln N N Ln °2S Ln O O Q) p + " � E u V _ > N MN ca •� 6 u N (a U j+ C p N p_ u a c Q) _0v N 3 D o o> 3 L O C r6 N Q) — V C Q C6 +� Q) +� Q) '� Ln O `� O -Se ns O 0 a) u N p n! '_ N p L" Ol O C) CD CD E CU O CL W .� N N 'V O N z + O +' Q) f6LA U� Q v' O m d U Q Q7 , v Q �, } ns j x N O V O+ Q) -C 7 Q) Q) + C - > u p C C Ln Q Q_0 m m O E .I O V m O 0 4- 0 CD v) __ a, Q)_0 O OC) N N> s s c i 0 m LO m c V — N m m (6 O _ m c O Q m Ol c 0 O-0 Q) v E Lni E i— _0 •� Q c U + + u O >O c Q ( p Q Q) Q) � v — Q 0 O 6 6 > �_ O m m — (Dc Q Q (Dm m - � c v Q) u Q Q u m v 'u p O W L L d Q (D E O c c N E }' +� > — O Ou 7 c ai Q 0) O r (a) + 4- c a) Q v' O O v� u 7 c— c = —_ Q) Y YO 2 O N -0 Q � N � U � O M Q 0 m N = m O} a Q Q) co m e u 3 m E o �; a a m '� m s O c c Q) Q) +� c LL- Q) E -C vi c _0 c Q) ^ Q) a) -0 -0 > w vs c O m O a) c > c + c c-0 N Q c + p Q m p = m _Q) U m m N L m m m N N N m O al Q -C } O m Q) O n C Q 6 C: a) v Q -C +� m u + a) N c N Q) N Q m >. -0 N >, Ol O N N > - Q Q) 61 m vi m c c _ m a) Q) Q u M O a) � — a) m c N c6 N v m— — U Q p c O Q O Ln m v V m v+ Q) 3 > d 0 Q aJ O N co a) `^ O in 4) Q) X_ Ol Q c/') N V 4 `� 0 Qom) +� + C3)ff V O —>, Q) Q) = N +� i c O N m V) CD m in Q) Q) N N N N m v m N ,� u m p m co O m M > Q) m L v m 'n O O p M a c v V Ln m �' Q v' vi m c m Q) v v v w �> °J v -.0. L m N N Q) � M m m m V > C C NLj- U O +�-+ Q v, Q) + c a) Q s c O p =_ a) c� m c a) ca a) V N v u c m p m V m Q 3 c m m } L U — p a) m +Ln N m m Q 7 �' v, a = ^ p= V O Vi Q) Q) p O Q) V Q v Q m c Q m= 0 Q 3 a Q O c _0 v) v a Q) = O Q Q) O m c c m O c Q) O m c >> M O_0 —6 ® c >O F C .�_ Q., Q m a) a) m Q c4 p c v m CD 0) i Q) Q N `^ m m O + L + c a) v +� 0) Q! m Ln v 0 a m N v O Q C E N Q .C_ O N O0 .0 a) U a) m Q O _� 4) a) :�, > i a) >1 X p Q p(D 0 4 �» Q M + v O m .� + U) cn a) Q 0- vi m u (S3ENVA) OMVd IVION3V (SISVA) 019 DNUNVId IVIO )IIVM3(31S SMIAMIS HilM 439 9Mlh 9 4- 0 LO can I `JNI1NVld %NnD aano D aano 0 4- 0 —LO Ln ,-- LO a� ca n 0 LL r 0 4- 0 N Cfl LPA r LO (6 n D 0 0 m ti Ln LO n 0 Q 0 §.� y/ f 7 00 E 2 G e = m 7 E E / E _/ o 0ƒ@ / y o ° e o R _ ° / « % ®/ \ C 0 _c ® / e / 0- \ c® e° c 0 o z .g % g g= y t (D e a @ / / » % 2 » a % Ln \ w / 4 \ / y g \ / T o e \ y u 0 y e � ) a (/ � 0 ƒ (D / m ® 0 ( = E \ % « E a ± s e e e e y e s s w°Lnm � e ^ / f \ 2 : = s ./ E (ƒ / u .e 6 7 § \ m \ 3 -0> 2 /./ o E E o 2 « « *� _§ ° % 0\ 2\ e y/ Z3 /n m w e««) E e E \ % 2 = 3 { o f .e /) b> y 7 w » ƒ � R ^ 0 z E y o.\ 0 / E.2 2 / :/ ® \ s e y » © / © 7 / = \ / + « a 4# _ a a s o 0LA / c / / \ 0 2% . Ln // 2= V) 3 R E Z3 / e u a\ .. y 0- eƒ ƒ 0 7 0 { / m G o- ƒ '7n n LA � / y / / / \ \ / / » / G o u o e/ - / e k / ( § / e $ / \ / / » a_/ y 0 e=- u e s e E e 7 0 / ° § ° m / uj y/oma 6 9\ / 9 9 & m o ~ 7 :§ 2 2 ~ » 9 9 / / \ \./ s / � 2 a ° \ y CD . y o y m M 2\ o m § ±\ o 2 e a e? . e 7 m e .9 s e 2 §\§ y 2/$ 0© y G o . p g m / » / 2 / s / { \ ° / e & \ = \ E 2 ƒ « y \: LJJ2 \ \ / / / / % E \ \ f \ E%z D Ilke e a s\ «\ E& \& f 2 u 2% g t e% e[ E / E E § > C © \ ƒ E \ ¥ ) / \ / 3 9 6 ± 7 E o 7 S \ _\ ® ƒ / 6 / o E S S c— 8© e 2= u � o = 3 z y g m g y c \ / \ / / \ \ / \ / 0 / o % % 0 m 2 s u g e G> e c a 3 E» g « 3 3 2 E R y a u\ g = s e u s s / -E o y 7> ° o o ° / _ 2 2 s s c o 0 - - - - - 3 > / / ` e - e ° = / £ 2 y y § c \ % / / E o g J I L mem r\j ri OL Li 4- 0 Lrn Ln LO can loom 'A I r\j ri OL Li 4- 0 Lrn Ln LO can k / � \ ® ° } 4 ƒ E 0 \ e / / Ln \ ƒ 0 � » / — » _ ƒ / / » y = \ /n / 0 % / 7 / > / \ \ R ~ « o \ L \ . g ��O ® .� 7 a # � 7 c \ ƒ ® / / / / ƒ a G E/ / § < 6 ( 0 2 c / / / 0 < 2 / \ « 4 m e / Ln 3 » ± / / / « o \ . g n Z ® .� \ a # e \ e \ y \ % e * ) Q) CO ƒ 3 $ 2» ( 0 2 c Q / ° / s \ / 9 9 ° R / ® S a w z / / C:( e ° % / § « s 6 ./ 2 4- 0 Ln LO n 7D = Q) O + 6 O -0 Cli O, v cc +- V M N (v C rz Cll Q ra N L c6 a v L.L. v _0 Z5 N es = O N —_ U > O N `r3 >, v O m > v N Q V O _� N O V } Ci L >_V o o Q E � d Ln N Q) CU 0 ) i + N Q N v v O — .3 .+N- CZ Q) co N N U > Cil fV O O E LL Q N d J ra O O v c v Q v 6 V Q C O N— Q 0 Z3 O n X N + C Ln B N vii V :1 (DLn__ v _ N o Q) Q O @ v 0 3 ° 3 Q (D �l + +�- C +' Q) c6 N V O -a CD - 0 Z x Q— E Q) Q Q) v E Ln v v N �>> d 0 N QJ m Z; O Q tf � -Q � 3: [--> Q • k 0 0 L N N LO N D E rd O m m v cc +- V M L (v C rz Cll a-' L m L.L. es = O N —_ U > `r3 0 i Ln Q V 6s N O V N Ci C o o Q O d Ln N Q) 0 ) i CU co N vVi U Cil fV O E LL Q l./1 d J 0 0 L N N LO N D 4- 0 Ln N LO M n r uom min �e llmu N QJ Cll t6 L V C + L c6 OLr) CDL Q O o O E 3 D co > o T ._ m Q —Q) 7EL Ln ° .2 > > o o Q @ � o Q) O E -oN Q Q m m C .0 Q, ca V O +' '�O �E � CV6 Q Q Cll -0 Q)N N V 0 ° V N V QJ N Cll — Q +' �• L N OLn p + Ln O O •�^ Q N� V '} Cll c6 N + + m V � � QM — c a, Ln 3 N V ° C C E � o -C� c Q Q of � m m Ln D 0 N 4.- 0 -LO 1.0 N LO n a, 0 0- 0 O L Q) O Q1 QJ Q) Q m V N N LU a, 0 EE om Ln o o co cn c O Q) O v n3 s �, n3 0 Q n > �, > _ c Q) � > v v ° Q Ln E D ca v ca co Ln Ln Ln N C N 6 Op � n3 n3 OJ M N N N }, V C LU _ Ol O ns >, O Q +L ro M Ln Q-0 Q F (DO n5 O j OO O N O Ln Q _ L Ln C .�rs N `n O O 7 N- m _0 O QJ >� Q in c^ c6 Eu 4 al Q) D p O p N v Ln Ln Z — v — O Q o- ° o 3 M . V) O N O Q +Ln ^ a 'V) C p Q O E N N n3 � D m N C QJ E Q) 3 (6 Q @ Q) Q V O +� O Ln — + Q1 Q) p °l V m Ln C C 61 v V) pl o +� s > u N O p O Q O `6 L7 -0 Q Z `6 ' ca u Ln v u O O -C L � > Q ° E u "I } Q o c m O Q u a, Q K % Q rz ° u Ln p + NN ° ° �_ O O d C3 m -6 i >� C) C5) a- N LA p +-' Q) V m N i O Ll i inn Q) Q) N In Q O d 0 0 +^ L L > N Qm Q� +� n5 ,� M O (D Q)v' 3 �— u r n5 Q v? N > O o V IV ° > o Ln c w Ln D I » / ƒ 2 ± ± / 2 7 & \ © ? ® 0 \% f»� / » ° = c c \ 0/ § % \ '/ ® e 2 7/ G\ \ E[/ « y y J e / \ e y ± ( 2 m ± \ $ f E \ > -00 E G/ 5% J 9 / e ~ §/ = o ® [ E ® 4 « y / c .g = e= e/ G\ e p o w s) } % ° ± / \( m 0/ o\ e f 2ƒ y 2 c 2% e \o g 3 ° �_ / o = » ® E e 2 e e 2®* 2. > y » $ ƒ / 2 . t % > 2 ®% 0 e ./ '/ \/ e a J\% Q) g\ a 2 m g E\ 2 » / e 5 \ & \ _ƒ 'a ± % o s E % J ( \ E \ -E E m \ 7 m 2 e$ 0& 5 0 G \ \ / ƒ � / > y y » x © [ \ / C)- ( % } / \ 2 » \ \ E / o e / \ LA \ k 7 E 2 / e \ ® ƒ J / \ \ \ / / E / § ® e o / s \ L / \ / E { ( } 2 ƒ / / o E \ l = a \ f $ / / / \/ /¥ / / / y E D 0 0 0 0 0 0)V) -0 Ln C3) -2 co Q� m v N c c 'L N E N O 0- EvC O Q (6 C Q E O LULU ~ +� O O U c D v m Zv (1) 3 O -0 U) O O Q co + V 0 p O � O .E N d + Om Q N U Q O N N (D N O O Q O 1-0 CD C u O +' l,j C N _0 N (1) v n in N a Ln Ln > O E O v Q c p m a� dS E Q ~ 7u- � :3 p L 6 - ! .- N O > O O E u v U E 0 Qn � > +n W v Q c m v tB N QJ 4J Q L N Q) O E C p1v v N p E Q N U c6 V O 0 co a O Q O O O O U Q N Q v V 0 0 _ 3 O U s •+ o s i Q) a� d In U QJ InLn N � Q) f6 c6 c6 N c m + > u c6 Q v b Ln N E O CD vi O O a) E m > O Q Qo u 0 LA N ,if p-0 N N N L p N v m 6 B v LE � O v LA (1) O U N H L QA--� N -- v O N O O (� 0 6 N p m U p + v n � Q m m .= p n V Q) M O Q _ o O O L in IA Ol V N V N �O Z3 c6 iJ N Z5 N a) Ln N C Vl i + Q •N �1 M N 0E m•— N Q N > N v O pl p O 'V) > p + 00 N l5 NO � Q v Q� NN '+ t -6 +ca O Q N Q p p + M Ol E c0 O) V + N (DN p +' N 73 N -.2N 7 n 0 v E E v U M O O O N =3N p O N _ Nr,j O > O O > mO cu N O Q O V1 Q Q) N ru Ln • E >, .�' O N CC Z O Q p cu H Q V N Q O — E 2 m —> v LA LN b p ( u p O O a vii • • • v v > p O m (DV Ln 'L C Q Q Ql o � > 'L O LQ O> Ln d cB Vl Q O Q O O Q O m co 6 d- > C a Ln Nt 0 0 Q) N N 7D 7D N N M N o 3 R3 — N o Q V n3 = a Q Q) c - Q LO U Q) E T) @ N Q) o " L a-% Q E - V Q) -0 N O V ^ n3 N �O a) n3 O g (6 > a) Q) V p v n3 N CO • N C1 O Q) � a N >, Q) c s ~ p E N c O ' O -0 c O N c0173 QJ N Q) N N 0 a r6 in 0 O Ln N �' N Q O a--+ .O c E QJ U tA N m i __ n3 V '� c V Ol '++ C Q O O O c N _O Q) i N O Q) c ' E p O -Z N m > Ol n 3 O > °' o o E a� o o Q) L 3 Q N •> + n3 Q1 O O Ol Q E �DT p c Q � tOn N O O > . c N >, pl +� x N +� NW O Q) Q Q) Q O c Q) w N 6 O Q n3 (6 C Q) -0 ® Q Q v O V N p al u3:0 Z3 �_ U N C O L .> N z pv +� N O Ol O 6 N V Q N 0 CD V O O c -Ln '� N N O n3 p+ c0 v)'� Ln Q .� N + > N W i N N@ @ Q) Q) Ln Oc N -0 � N_ p 7 x N 0O O Q O E_ > O O N Q '� O V — O c Q O N V Q) — D M ^ � V Q> - x c i O w O Dl Ol O w+ p _� 'N O nsV W Q N Q) [6 V c • • • • — C5)Ol Q) Q) Q) -0 Q) +j -6 -6 -0 -0 vi Q) + C + + O 7DQ1 m n5 E 3 6 6 6 l6 3 c O Q L N p Ln Q) n5 ON D Q O N _� D— Q c C Q) Q) N N L O N N V N ON � - , + L � p N a) > N c0 vOi c O r6 v 0O p> CY)� Val a, V c_0 O Q) O Ol U O O Q) O 6 cLn O N C N~ c 7D V N Q +� - n3 Q) Q O Q Q)Q +� o O+ Oc * LO 1/3 a) pl v Q P N N Q O Q ' N N O Z3N Q� C v c V N N Q) Q v p m N N Q Q • N Q Q) O Q N p Q) p V NCl) ru v N 6 vV v Q) C - + O Q) O o o v v Q 3 0 N '� i Q v N m-0 > v O Q p } 0 m '� N v � O V m O+ N N in i Q) O Q O V N Q V N Q) C p V c — j Q) V Q) Z;N "' O N c N Q Q) L O N Q) Ln N Q Q n3 n3 C Ln E Q O aJ c v Q 0 Q O +n O O j QJ c 6 N Q) L Q Ol N v — p Q O c Q O �' E � �_ N + Ln N V Ol N V 0 O - Ln ~ �' O Q) > QJ c In O Ln .O NO NO U 0 � o Q)O Dl O r6 r6 O + Of V) Z N ) in O •i N c 6 c O c O O c _oeO > d um p c N E _ c :0 L6 T _ LA 0 O c 'N Q O O Q) O ru (66 C c oll vi • • • • O O Q c 0 0) r6 (1) iO) LA O LriQ a Q o L:°� L) Q >Qom' a T 0 4- 0 C — V, v O + Q N N N m O i -n Q LO Q E i C 00 p C E p N L > l0 O O p Q— -0 N E E CD O v O m D v Ol 6 -a N�i + to L > Q N v CLn — n in V :3 O p O Q rn L ' a) W — N L +, vi +-� C m >' p 0) OE Ol � O0 N+ LE _� O u N C � + O �z LA O m Q O 0> O LO OZ3 O Ln Ln -6 '> Q) -C � ~ p 4- `n � — V C C O Q — +' N � v > O N O a) O V p C Q C in > uO a) C > In 0 O C V V > Op -= m O Q O N a- > O } p Q E rn — m ra cn O O m C N al _ — c C fl O � O L Ln rB — •3 __ m '� _ m N Ol C Q N d -E Ol _u m L O Ln }, O _6 +' _ a) L -6 m �ysj r6 o > E Oo m C �n O o C C ro O o v s v N C B �n V' Q c Q )D Q) a) Q s ca i Qd o y a _ � Q � OV Q � -� Ln i L, N O m Q v 6 O a Q 6� OV a 6 N + N v co + Ln -r3 v p0 U Q) Q £ a v o Ul N F- a -0 *' o Q — � O a) o O D1 2 01 u Ln U u 0) a) 3:-C a) -C N Q -0 C Q _O Q) C rn __ N u _� > rn cn C O O O ' NLnu -C L Q p O— • � a� C Sn (D vi a) S � +� z O i O + m C Ly Q) _ Q) Ln C O Q v rn + Q O Q O n O N C > ra Q O N N T C} n Q CO X co L u O O N Q C CO E 3 m a cn C +-� +' N+ = C C m Q `n vi C �_ N N +' a) p n a � v • — 0) O > pl Q) U a) O > O Q O i u m m u m N o = Q C p O Q v O al — L Ov c LA O O O U+ N L O~ O > X — m m O (DN a) N v� L C Q) O + X to in V C o s p >' O O c m O Ln M Z5 O n N v O v m O Q t QLn +� 'N V u� a) r6 C C V u c C Ln u N m m O '+ in > a) O a) V m m C n O Q> O a) O N M O Q a) C ro p O C a) QC N C C M Q O a) O Q Ln ro + In a) O Ln a) u M N > OL a) LnLn Lnu Q) n N +� -0 - > m C O Ln Mv p f1 Q m + m Q Q C N ,+ Q) m rn C N vi C '+� `n r6 > m C L = p O m c n c a) � C Ln NO O a>O Q Ln m pO n QCQn L = C U 0 -C �O Q 't-0 Q Ln m a O Ui � B� 0 4- 0 ' v >, Q C Q) Z n3 Q) i p Q) V Q) M oo N M u Z3> -07 Q) v O '+ n3 a, •> C I m = .° Q) � CO LO o s c 113 3 ° a °1 p U o=° -p � o _ v Z3 v O Q °U' N o o v N (D — �, v �, wLU ' 3 C N Eo o v a) � o C o> Q) o aJ v o o — Q) a)° E L E N C: p C) C u N Q Ln u m °> -0v o C a E O> Q o v Q) > Q U C) N C Q O Q) U U B Q Q m N O C -E + 3:U O = -F—Q) x m O o OC Q) C o O E 6 O Q 06n Q n3 O p C} LnN Q) C + 5 7 N Q E '+ O p O1 �' _ E C C U — — �' '� S 'E v — •M Q) vNi Q) in Q V) (D — -5 U 0N v> N C — O C N V) O m Q Q _0p1 N S ca +-� v Q)O c*6 @ .� Q) Lnra ° E Q p NO O N . in Q C v O + + n 6 s Q1 E v U N �O > O Q C Q a) N Q-0 O O N +n v (D w Q Q}�i C > O L 4) E+ -C C S C L L 7 w Q) C `� ° d Q) o o+ 6Iz n 7+ v O LA xE Q m EQ u cc): E U a� > O Q O �z LE +' O v � p O Z3 > (D 3 p T p O E �, Q ns Q E a) _ C a) CY) () Q EO +�- O -0p Z— n aU U aC) U _� c6 vi — Q > _ > p N p V C * U o °1 > NO E Q O ^ + V N Q) Q) U + N x Q) i — cn Q .Q) Un t > N O c6 V N C Ov N C Q)�i N Q) N c6 C QJ v . E Q +� O O O Q) (p v7 Q E io (Dn3 a LLA N --5 D O NO v C > Qj O a) O U C Q) N C � > N O N V > E v u a Q) F Q) Q N Qj E i a) O C N >, co U) v' Q� Dl O ' 0 N E dS E E U U E OQ0 p } C U Q) ro U r6 Q) C 4J N E Q) O E ° p C a) '+ i C .}' vCi Q S '� a--� N QU N m N p E > U '� N •X Q Q) Vl +' O O M ° U N � ° C +� N Q) a)_ rCa cCa Q ° o O v p of o — �' v Q Q N cC Z E a) ami •- � n5 v o m Q U � E rUa O T +_ E>> O U cc Q oQ a) u a) Q a U E Q +- o N O O > to > Q) C l.r� O CLo > p _0 U p C Q) Q) Q� U �^ OV LA U)o Q l7 _ O-0 Q a x ._^ N C N t V Y QJ cu i O Ln I Ln Ln l6 (6 >� � .czC v' N O + U 0)+' N Cl) i }, 4J V `•�� L cn N N p O i f O I Nv n 3 0 Ln (D Ln Q� O Q V) 4J N cn O V v to Q + V) +^ p N -O O Q O N v v ca N O T O pl uumumum v E N d +�-� *' N ro v O > m= M U umumumumm +=- N S v 01 r6 '� _ @ C pl C Q U of `� p M O vi � > O °' � p �1 m N s c v O a� Q uuuuuuw O 6 + co v N-0 v C 06 p O N Q 6 cn cn C } n > = — Q n O mmm 7 — V N Q1 +, O m .� T C � C O C N N v v O n C T v M O + m D o C uumumum� cn N _Q O 0O +� C +' N i mmmmw� C O p+ ,� O m N .O OO O N } •N m mem a� O Ol c6 Ol C O O O pl v v a) +} a� Ln .. c p + C L• O N � � � c6 C C CC L 7 p N 0 � L In C .7 C V CD l6 � N C QJ .� Q L N � Ol Ol in O—C +' C N cn N p cn T T Q C _= O V O V Q C w C O O u O U C 6 Ln O— O 0 O M O O • • • • • • • • u O Q 9l N C N t V Y QJ cu i O Ln I Ln Ln C) co 0 cr) LO (1) c� n IwLl luwiwi iwiwim iwi swim 'uwiwiwiwiwiw uwiwiwiwiuJ� n uwiwiwiwi p iwi swim I� Iiwi lwllilwiwiw uwiwiwiuui IWiwi�Vlwiu� uwliwiwiwi �iwiwiwiwu iwi iwiw IV iwi iwiw III VIIIIIIII IIII IWiwi�YwiwV �iwiwiwiwu uwiwiwiwiwiw uwiwi iwiwiw Ilwlwl wluulw MO. in 0 Q 0 LO q LO & 0) E n C) m 0 Q q LO m � _ I March 22, 2023 379 Queen Street South Kitchener, ON N2G 1W8 Tel. 519.745.3249 www.polocarpinc.com City of Kitchener Planning Division 200 King Street West, 6th Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Attention: Craig Dumart, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Reference: 455-509 Mill Street Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments Response to Parks and Cemeteries Comments Polocorp Inc has reviewed the comments received from Parks and Cemeteries, issued on March 16, 2022. In response to the provided comments, please see below: Parkland Dedication Polocorp understands that the required parkland dedication is deferred at the OPA/ZBA stage and will be assessed through the future Site Plan application. With that said, we note that the Parkland Dedication By-law, and its applicability to the proposed development, is currently under appeal by Polocorp Inc. As such, the ultimate dedication form and amount is subject to the on-going appeal. Entry Plaza The lands municipally known as 451 Mill Street are currently owned by the Region of Waterloo. These lands form part of the 'Entry Plaza' within the proposed development. As previously discussed with City and Regional staff, the concept contemplates for 451 Mill Street and 455 Mill Street to be conveyed to the City of Kitchener to, ultimately, comprise the Entry Plaza feature. The plaza would be City -owned. We note, however, that these discussions remain on-going and no formal decisions have been made. The lands remain Regionally -owned and the City has not provided confirmation of the proposal. As such, the lands could be more appropriately labelled as 'Potential City Park'. Detailed Desian While the application package illustrated and discussed areas of the plan in some detail, they are largely conceptual. While the development plan will remain fundamentally the same, detailed planning and design will occur through the Site Plan approval stage. Detailed design will contemplate public and Page 537 of 601 private amenity areas, both indoor and outdoor, including landscaping, engineering and wind impacts. Any necessary considerations related to engineering, mitigations, cross sections or refinements to plans will be determined at that time. Amenity area programming will also be established through detailed design. Specific uses will be determined through consultation with staff, as well as based on market demand. To date, Polocorp has contemplated outdoor seating areas, BBQ areas, basketball courts, dog runs, etc as potential amenities within the private amenity areas. In addition to the outdoor amenity areas, residents will have access to a variety of indoor amenity spaces which could include party rooms, theatres, community lounges, a gym, etc. Collectively, the provision of these areas will help satisfy the demand for outdoor amenity areas by future residents. I trust that the above information provides sufficient information to address the comments provided. Polocorp is committed to collaborating with staff at the appropriate time to address these, or any future comments, that may be provided. We look forward to continuing to work together to progress this application. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, Polocorp Inc. ;i Matthew War cha Director of Planning and Development Cc: Joseph Puopolo, Polocorp Inc David Butler, The Butler Group Consultants Steve O'Melia, Miller Thomson LLP 21 u:, c: ry Page 538 of 601 Intemaimemo IurcR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca Date: March 02, 2023 To: Craig Dumart From: Jason BrOI6 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment Application Polocorp Inc. 455-509 Mill Street, Kitchener ZBA 22/015/M/CD OPA 22/008/M/CD The below comments have been prepared through the review of the supplied Functional Servicing & SWM Report dated July 12, 2022 and Functional Servicing Report Letter dated February 13, 2023 prepared by JPE Engineering; in support of the above noted applications. General Comments: 1. Engineering is in support of the applications. Any comments below can be used to direct detailed design. Sanitary: 2. Proposed flows were verified in the City's model and indicate no impacts downstream of this development. 3. The City of Kitchener infiltration rate for sanitary is 0.15 Us/ha not the 0.25 L/s/ha shown in the report. Further to that, it appears the calculated value for infiltration in the appendix is wildly over. For 5.3ha it shouldn't even be 1 L/s and the calculation shows 5.55 L/s? 4. Please provide the source of the population estimates per unit type used in the calculations. With 1473 residential units and a population of 1.77 ppl/unit (from the Region's 2020 Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report) the proposed population would be 2607, slightly higher than the 2296 as shown in the report. 5. Please submit a traditional sanitary sizing design sheet with detailed design confirming that the selected size of outlet pipe and slope has the capacity. Water (Angela Mick, Kitchener Utilities): 6. Any buildings over 84m tall require a second water service in accordance with Ontario Building Code section 3.2.9.7 (4). 7. This site is complicated so when you get to water servicing, you should probably schedule a meeting with Building/Planning/Development to make sure you aren't creating a non - municipal drinking water system. Storm and Stormwater Management: 8. A more thorough review of the site SWM will be conducted with detailed design. 9. Note: SWM fees with respect to retention or quality are assessed and calculated in the year in which they are to be paid. Page 539 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form Address: 455-509 Mill Street Owner: PoloCorp Inc. Application #: OPA 22/008/M/CD ZBA22/015/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: March 15, 2023 f' ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) 0 No meeting to be held „�/O''o,; � 11., Ido NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) i, oo,,� 1. Documents Reviewed: • Cover Letter • Updated Urban Design Brief- Feb 2023 • Updated Architecture Plans — NEO, Feb 6, 2023 • Updated Shadow Study -NEO, Feb 6, 2023 • Updated Wind Study - Pedestrian Wind Assessment 2. Site -Specific Comments & Issues: gem /� Urban design staff are satisfied with the revised de elopmen't:,c /kept. The shadow study, tall building %, separation, and urban design brief are acceptable. Mille the,1concept of residential intensification on 0 is this site is positive, and many previous staff comments have'been incorporated into the proposal, some otn design modifications must be addressed in.t:he'Site Plan Application to create a development proposal that is well-designed and appropriate for, thI' J anwheighbourhood. 3. Comments on Submitted Docu�mentsy Desien Brief- F Tall Building Design Ati lys s' The%tall building design guidelines are an excellent compatibility test for proposals exceedl;ng their%inning permissions. The proposal meets the overall intent of the City's Design for Tall BuildingsGili'del'ffi., %1 Building Design The proposed 5 and 6 -storey pedestrian -scaled podium along Mill Street is /Gj� i "W9. distinguishedby ta11 towers, step -backs and intended architectural treatment. The proposed relative heigH accommodates human -scaled built form along streetscapes while accommodating compatibility matters/,,`C;ontemporary architectural style and details are to be refined through the site plan process. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 1 of 6 Page 540 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form On-site Amenity area: • Required amenity space calculations are contained in the Urban Design Manual and include two parts — one for a general amenity area and one for children's play facilities in multiple residential developments. (2m2 x #units) + (2.5m2 x #bedrooms - #units) = outdoor amenity space. • Additional information should be provided at the site plan stage regarding the various on-site amenity spaces in the UDB (common, individual, indoor, and outdoor). Updated Shadow Studies, NEO Architecture Inc, Feb 10, 2023: The submitted shadow analysis is acceptable as it confirms that the proposal -maintained aceessto at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight to nearby sidewalks and open spaces. Updated Architecture Package- NEO Architects%, • The proposed visitor parking along street B is highly vible from,Mill'Street. You may consider reducing the number of visitor parking spaces and relocating them to the underground/structure parking. ,-.. • Active uses, including retails with outdoor, patios or residential amenity areas should be situated along Mill Street and the proposed promenade' A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 2 of 6 Page 541 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form Mirvish Village, Toronto o The proposed long podiums B and E should be broken down using epfia`nced detailing and articulation. i,. According to Tall Building Design Guidelines, buildings longerthan 70m should demonstrate enhanced streetscaping, materials and building articulation.RN, ' ® The proposed corner treatment for podiums B & E is to be further enhanced to create visual interest at Mill Street. This could be achieved by special,massin/5 g and"arcfi;tectur1 treatments on both streets to give prominence along the frontages and visually distinguish these sites. i, ® This project should play a significant role in reinforcing the character of Mill Street. There is a need for public art at the corner of tower B/E, 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<>eorner o Community-or,iented`space o Enhanced exterior lighting (colored, programmable, pattered, etc.) ® Incorporate creative facade ideas on curtain walls with advanced exterior lighting that could help to control public flow and could improve the building design. Digital media facades make buildings tell stories and strike a perfect balance of aesthetic structures and illumination art (for example sustainable and digital technologies within the curtain wall, color light -emitting diode or LED Display Video walls, and Photometric system for 'interactive skin' to illuminate the screen after dark, digitally printed fritted glass) ® The building facades fronting Mill Street should contain the primary residential and commercial entrances and the appropriate amount of glazing and articulation, particularly along the lower 5m where the building addresses the sidewalk. ® Consider stepbacks for the upper storeys in the tower, both to increase articulation/visual interest in the building and create room for shared outdoor amenity space. This will also facilitate the transition to low-rise neighbourhoods. a All at -grade parking should be wrapped with active uses. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 3 of 6 Page 542 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form • The area between the building's face and the property line should be well integrated with the street and public realm to deliver high-quality and seamless private, semi -private and public spaces. • The tower should step back from its base a minimum of 3m along any street -facing elevations. • The underground parking structure should have a 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 accommodated on the garage slab but will still require standard minimum soil volumes. • Provide natural surveillance by employing high percentages of glazing, and active uses at ground level and incorporate more units with patios and windows/balconies on the mairObcadepith"Views onto Mill Street. • The proposed towers should have unique top features that are architecturally e cellent, highly visible and makes a positive contribution to the image of Kitchener de"loping'skyline. The Well, Toronto • Provide materiality and texture shifts at the podium and across the towers and incorporate variations in tdWer'setbacks from the base to distinguish the tower form from the podium. • Wind assessment, Noise feasibility and shadow study required for outdoor amenity and the pedestrian realm • ', Residential and commercial entrances should be clearly identified and offer access from both the public realr' and the private parking side of the building. The proposed main entrance is to be further, enhanced to create visual interest at the street edge. (for example cantilevered entrance canopy, corrugated -metal panels and fritted glass. ® Balconies may be staggered in a creative pattern to lighten the structure and provide private outdoor space for the units. ® Towers are highly visible elements of the urban environment and must meet Kitchener's highest standards for design excellence. The building should be designed and clad with different materials and colours so that they read as distinct from one another. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 4 of 6 Page 543 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form • All utilities should be coordinated with the landscape design and with building elevations to provide a high-quality pedestrian experience with the site and from the public realm. Infrastructure should be located within the building in mechanical/electrical rooms and exterior connections located discretely and incorporate physical screens or landscape plating as required. Surface transformers or service connections visible from the public realm are not supported. • I have enclosed some precedents for the proposed promenade and station plaza. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 5 of 6 Page 544 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change Comment Form Wind Study - Pedestrian Level Wind The submitted preliminary Wind Stuc the existing surroundings and incl ud.E there are areas of increased wind?soi A full Wind Asse proposal should Summ -elimin"ary Impact Assessment. catos dithat the proposed development is significantly taller than '.towers which will interact with the prevailing winds. As a result, predicted where comfort conditions will not be suitable. "provided for review at the site plan application stage. A revised design at addresses the wind impacts outlined in the submitted wind study. In summary, Urban Design staff are supportive of the zone change/official plan amendment. While the concept of residential intensification on this site is positive and many previous staff comments have been incorporated into the proposal, Urban Design staff recommend that the Urban Design Brief be endorsed, and that staff be directed to implement the Urban Design Brief through future Site Plan Approval processes. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 6 of 6 Page 545 of 601 Craig Dumart Senior 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 4,13 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 1-226-752-8622 File: D17/2/22008 C14/2/22015 March 21, 2023 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 22/08 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 22/15 — 2nd submission 459-509 Mill Street The Butler Group Consultants on behalf of Polocorp Inc. CITY OF KITCHENER The Butler Group Consultants have resubmitted a site-specific Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Application for a development proposal at 459-509 Mill Street (referred to as subject lands) in the City of Kitchener. Original Proposal: The applicant is proposing six (6) towers described as towers A -F ranging in heights from 13-32 storeys in height. Tower A is proposed as a 27 -storey tower atop a 7 -storey podium adjacent to the Mill Street ION stop. Tower B is proposed as a 14 -storey tower atop a 5 -storey podium. Tower C is proposed as an -11-storey tower atop a 4 -storey podium. Tower D is proposed as a 32 -storey tower connected to Tower F (a 29 -storey tower) both connected via an 8 -storey tower. Tower E is proposed as a 21 -storey tower atop a 6 -storey podium. The development will consist of 1473 residential units and approximately 2789 square metres (30,020 square feet) of commercial floor area. A total of 686 parking spaces are proposed in underground and some surface parking. Current Proposal: The applicant is now proposing five (5) towers described as towers A-E with four (4) podiums ranging in heights from 15 to 44 storeys. Tower A is proposed as a 31 -storey tower atop an 8 -storey podium. Tower B is proposed as a 44 -storey tower connected Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 546 of 601 by an 8 -storey podium to Tower C (a 40 -storey tower). Tower D is proposed as a 15 - storey tower atop a 5 -storey podium and Tower E is a 21 -storey tower atop a 6 -storey podium. The development consists of approximately 1500 residential apartment style units with 1150 parking spaces provided in underground and structured parking. Two (2) accesses continue to be proposed from Mill Street at the Sydney Street intersection and through an additional access between the Tower D and the park areas. The subject lands are located in the Urban Area and designated Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan. The site is designated General Industrial Employment in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned General Industrial (M-2) Zone in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law. The Owner has requested an Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the lands from General Industrial to Mixed -Use to permit an increase in the FSR to 8.5 (whereas the maximum is 5.0 FSR). The Applicant has requested a Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the site from the General Industrial (M-2) Zone to the Mixed Three (Mix -3) Zone with special regulations and a holding provision. The special provisions relate to a reduced rear yard setback from 7.5 m to 0 m for the building podium; a reduction in the minimum rear year setback from 7.5m to 2.5m for the building tower; a reduction of the minimum interior side yard from 4.0 m to 0 m for the building podium; a reduction in the minimum eastern interior side yard of 4.0 m to 3.4m for the tower; an increase in the maximum building height of 32 m to 105m; an increase in the number of storeys from 10 storeys to 32 storeys; an increase of the maximum storeys in the base of a mid -rise building from 6 to 8; an increase in the maximum FSR from 2.0 to 8.5; and, a reduction in the minimum percent of non-residential gross floor area from 20% to 1.0%. In addition, the applicant has proposed a minimum parking space of 0.55 spaces/dwelling unit plus 0.05/visitor spaces/dwelling unit and spaces that are shared between uses. The applicant has also proposed a prohibition on closed loop geothermal energy systems. In addition, the applicant has proposed a holding provision until an RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter have been received. The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following: Regional Comments Consistency with Provincial Legislation and Regional Official Plan Conformity The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the site is located in a Major Transit Station Area of Kitchener and designated General Industrial Employment in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Planned Community Structure: The majority of the Region's future growth will occur within the Urban Area designation with a substantial portion of this growth directed to the existing Built -Up Area of the Region through reurbanization. Focal points for reurbanization include Urban Growth Centres, Township Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes (ROP Section 2.13). Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 547 of 601 Regional staff acknowledge that the subject lands are directly adjacent to the Mill Station ION stop and the subject lands are within walking distance to multiple bus stops with routes that connect to the ION and the Urban Growth Centre in Kitchener. Regional staff acknowledge that the concept proposes new residential units in forms other than single -detached and semi-detached units as par Regional OP policy 3.A.5 and that higher density residential and commercial uses directly adjacent to the Mill ION Stop have been proposed. ROPA 6 Adopted Policies: The subject lands are located within the Regional Council Adopted Kitchener Mill Station Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). The development concept proposes a higher density development that contributes to the minimum density target established for the Mill Station MTSA of 160 people and jobs per hectare. As Major Transit Station Areas are identified as a Strategic Growth Area, the Region is supportive of increased density, uses and activity within these areas. The density proposed through this development would contribute to the achievement of the MTSA density target prescribed through ROPA 6. Development within Major Transit Station Areas are to be transit -supportive with development that prioritizes access to the transit station. Regional staff understand that the development includes pedestrian access to the sidewalk along Mill Street and the development includes an internal promenade with direct access to the Mill ION Station. In addition, the development concept proposes a reduction in the minimum required vehicular parking spaces as well as indoor and outdoor bicycle stalls facilitating access to the planned cycling route on Ottawa Street South. The development conforms to these policies. Finally, the housing form proposed through these applications include apartment style residential units. The type of housing proposed through this development will provide additional mix of housing form within this area. Conversion of Lands: Within Section 6.4 of the Planning Justification Report, the applicant has included a review of land conversion policies contained in A Place to Grow Growth Plan. The subject lands are not provincially significant employment lands and they are not located in a Regional Employment Area as designated through ROPA 6. In addition, Regional staff understand that the City of Kitchener has undergone a secondary plan (Rockway Parts Secondary Plan) for development around the Mill Station Ion Stop. The subject lands are included in the Rockway Parts Secondary Plan, which envisions the subject lands transitioning from an industrial land use to Mixed -Use Medium Density and Mixed - Use High Density uses. Land Use Compatibility: Regional staff have received the land use compatibility study which is contained in the Noise study entitled "Noise and Vibration Feasibility Study Proposed Mixed -Use Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 548 of 601 Development 459-509 Mill Street, Kitchener Ontario" prepared by HGC Engineering Ltd. dated July 13, 2022. Regional staff understand that the lands south of the subject lands are designated industrial and staff consider the existing industrial lands to the south as a Class II industrial area due to outdoor use of the lands. Class II industrial areas are recommended to be a minimum of 70m from sensitive land uses such as residential land uses. The subject lands are approximately 30m from the current designated industrial lands to the south. Section 4.10 of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) D6 Guideline indicates that it may not be possible to achieve the recommended minimum separation distances contained in the guideline for development in areas where urban redevelopment, infilling and/or transition to mixed use is taking place. Regional staff acknowledge that the subject lands are located in the Regional Council endorsed Mill Street Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). MTSA's are areas that are within 500-800 metres of a Light Rail Transit Stop. These areas are intended to accommodate transit supportive development that meet a minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs/ha and are to be developed in a way that is supported by a diverse mix of uses including a mix of residential, office institutional and commercial development, wherever appropriate. MTSAs are an area where redevelopment, infilling and mixed uses are encouraged; therefore, reduced setbacks recommended in Section 4.2 can be considered in accordance with section 4.10 of the D-6 guidelines. In addition to the above, the lands to the south are included in the Rockway Parts Secondary Plan, which envisions these lands to transition from an industrial land use to Mixed -Use Medium Density, Mixed -Use High Density and Innovation Employment Land Uses. Based on the above, Regional staff have no objection to the proposal from a compatibility perspective. Regional Lands: Regional staff understand that the applicant has proposed 451 Mill Street as an Entry Plaza. Please note that these lands are owned by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the disposition of Regionally Owned lands is governed through the Regional disposition process as set out by, and subject to, Regional By-law No. 20-042, the Municipal Act and other relevant Acts. Please be advised that the Region has not committed to the sale of the lands at the corner of Mill Street and Ottawa Street South, although the Region is willing to entertain further discussion related to the transfer or sale of lands to the City of Kitchener. In addition, the land disposition process can take considerable time as it is consultative and generally requires Council approval. In addition to the above planning comments, Regional staff have the following technical comments relating to the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 549 of 601 Environmental Threats/Record of Site Condition: There are medium and high environmental threats on the subject lands due to the past use of the site. As a sensitive land use has been proposed, a Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement letter shall be required for the entirety of the subject lands in accordance with the Region of Waterloo's Implementation Guideline for the Review of Development Applications On or Adjacent to Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites. Regional staff acknowledge that the applicant has proposed a Holding Provision prohibiting the proposed development until the submission of the RSC and the Ministry's Acknowledgement Letter have been received to the satisfaction of the Region for the entirety of the subject lands. Regional staff acknowledge that this site is to be developed in phases and the holding provision relating to the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter can be released in phases as each building is developed through the site plan process. Regional staff are supportive of the Holding Provision and the following is the required wording: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) in accordance with O. Reg. 953/04, as amended, has been filed on the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Environmental Site Registry and the RSC and Ministry's Acknowledgement letter is received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. This Holding Provision can be released in phases as each building is developed. Please be advised that the Record of Site Condition and corresponding Ministry Acknowledgement must correspond to the accompanying phase requesting to be released. Regional staff will not be in a position to release the holding provision if the RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter do not correspond to the phase requesting to be released. Corridor Planning: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Stage: Environmental (Transportation) Noise: Regional staff have received the noise study entitled "Noise and Vibration Feasibility Study, Proposed Mixed -Use Development, 459-509 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario" completed by HGC Engineering, dated July 13, 2022 and have no objection the conclusions and recommendations regarding transportation noise at the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment stage. Regional staff have the following detailed comments and required implementation measures from a transportation noise perspective: The study determined that noise levels at various locations within the proposed development will exceed the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP) noise limits. The study determined that the proposed noise sensitive aspects of the development will be feasible, subject to the implementation of noise mitigation measures, including the installation of air- conditioning units, special building components for the walls, windows and doors and Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 550 of 601 noise warning clauses for all units in the development to achieve the indoor noise level criteria. Required mitigation measures include: 1. All residential units within the proposed development at 459-509 Mills Street, Kitchener must be constructed with air conditioning system and include the following noise warning clauses in any agreements of Offers of Purchase and Sale, Lease/Rental Agreements, and the Condominium Declaration(s). "Purchasers/tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control features in the development and within the building units, sound levels due to increasing road and rail traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks." "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." "Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a rights-of-way within 300 meters from the land of subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment or the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way." 2. Each Tower Must be developed with building materials meeting the following minimum STC Ratings: Table 6: Required Minimum Glazing STC for Specific Facades Prediction Locations Desci ption Glazing STC , y [A] Soithv,est fagade of Towers D, and F STC 33 [B] Eastem fagade of T overs 4, B. C, D, E: and F STC -33 [C] Southwest fagade ofTovers A and C STC 33 ID] IV,Vestem and southern hgades of Towers ?., C:, D, and F STC -33 [E] Southwest fagade of Towers B and E STC -33 Not.: 'Based on assumed uindov, to floor area rano, of 60% (40% fixed and 20`o operahle). '- STC req*ement refer: to Emed glazing. SmaL?eals thrcush operable dcors and ss dors are assumed hovrever, tight we2aher seal should, he prsidstl to reduce such leakage to the e—tent fPastble_ Sound enteime throus= wL-aovr: and-nvs eo_vrise6 ofprecas#maso=v panels, andsp ndrel Blass Panel - OB C an'el,OBC — Ontario Building Code Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 551 of 601 The above STC ratings are based on a typical window to floor area of 60% (40% fixed and 20% operable) for living/dining rooms and bedrooms. Please be advised that any future noise addendums providing revised recommendations must be completed with detailed floor plans and building elevations for actual window to floor area ratios. 3. A brick veneer or masonry equivalent for residential units within 75m of the CN rail line shall be required. Further input regarding the design of the exterior walls can be provided during detailed design. 4. The location and installation of any outdoor/indoor air conditioning devices shall be done to minimize noise impacts and comply with the criteria of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks publication (NPC -300) as applicable. 5. That prior to the issuance of any building permit(s), the owner shall provide a certification letter from an acoustical Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, certifying that the noise attenuation measures are incorporated in the building plans and upon completion of construction, the Owner shall also provide a certification from an acoustical Engineer also certifying that the dwelling units have been constructed in accordance with the accepted mitigation measures, and the development meets the MECP NPC -300 noise guideline noise level criteria. Further to the above, the noise study recommends a detailed transportation noise study for each building once the mechanical and electrical equipment have been selected. To ensure that the detailed noise study is received to the Region's satisfaction, a Holding provision for a detailed transportation noise study shall be required to be implemented within the proposed Zoning By-law and can be released through each phase (if the development is to be phased). The required wording for the holding provision is: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a detailed transportation (road and rail) and stationary noise study have been completed and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the points of reception (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. This holding provision may be released in phases. Stationary Noise: Regional staff have received the report entitled "Noise and Vibration Feasibility Study Proposed Mixed -Use Development, 459-509 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario" prepared by HGC Engineering dated July 13, 2022 and have conducted a cursory review of the stationary noise aspects of the noise report. Regional staff require a detailed noise Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 552 of 601 study to be prepared and the detailed noise study shall be secured through the use of a Holding Provision within the Zoning By-law Amendment associated with ZBA22/015. Further to the above, Regional staff require the following to be addressed through the future detailed noise study, to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo: • Page 21 of the report assumes 40 minutes and 20 minutes per hour for daytime and nighttime HVAC use. 60 minutes for the daytime and 20 minutes for the nighttime use shall be used in the detailed stationary noise study. • The detailed stationary noise study shall assess the impact of on-site noise sources on on-site and off-site sensitive receptors. • The study recommends that the cooling towers have a maximum sound power level of 88 dBA. The noise consultant in consultation with the applicant/owner needs to confirm how this requirement will be secured and implemented on site within the detailed stationary noise study. • The detailed noise study shall address the impact of stationary noise resulting from the phasing/staging of the development. The review of the detailed study will be subject to a third party review by an external Noise Consultant retained by the Region. The fee for this third party review is $4000 ¢ HST ($4520.00 total). Additional fees may apply depending on scope of review required. Regional staff acknowledge that the client has proposed to phase/stage the development of the site and has proposed a detailed noise study for each phase. As indicated above, the Region shall require a holding provision to ensure a detailed transportation, rail and stationary noise study is received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The Holding Provision can be lifted in stages as the detailed design of each phase progresses through the site plan process. The required wording for the Holding Provision shall be: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a detailed Transportation, Rail and Stationary noise study has been completed and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the development on site noise sensitive receptors (e.g. HVAC system on the sensitive points of reception) and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. The holding provision can be lifted in phases/stages, as the detailed design of the corresponding building is designed through the site plan process. Region of Waterloo International Airport: The proposed development is located within the Region of Waterloo International Airport, Airport Zoning Regulated (AZR) area and the subject lands are located under the approach surface of Runway 08. The Region can support the proposed development (building and crane) to a maximum elevation of 487m ASL based on the aeronautical report submitted with the application. Regional staff require the elevation Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 553 of 601 to be clearly labelled on all plans moving forward and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Transport Canada and Nav Canada shall be consulted as soon as details are available regarding construction cranes. The aeronautical assessment submitted with the application identifies a maximum allowable height of 487m ASL prior to impacting airport instrument approach procedures. The limit of 487m ASL cannot be exceeded as it would impact the Runway 08 instrument approach procedures and therefore the usability of the airport. As per the Region's comments, dated February 10, 2023, Regional staff require the maximum height of 487m ASL to be implemented in the regulations of the Zoning By-law for both the proposed building and any related construction cranes. Any crane used for the construction of this development. (e.g. towers, rooftop HVAC, communication towers/antennas) must be within the maximum height of 487m ASL. The applicant shall submit a land use submission form to NAV Canada as soon as possible. The application form can be found here: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/aeronautical-information/land-use-program.aspx. A separate land use form is also required for the crane. The applicant shall submit an Aeronautical Assessment Form for both the building and crane to Transportation Canada as soon as possible. The application form can be found on their website here: https:Htc.canada.ca/en/aviation/general-operating-flight- rules/marking-lighting-obstacles-air-navigation. Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The existing properties have vehicular access directly to Mill Street with no direct access to Ottawa Street South (Regional Road 04) or Courtland Avenue East (Regional Road 53). The concept plan provided with the application proposes to remove the existing accesses and proposes two new vehicular access locations to Mill Street. Regional staff have no concerns with the proposed vehicular access design at this time. The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) entitled "459-489 Mill Street, Mixed Use Development, Transportation Impact Assessment, Parking Study and Transportation Demand Management Plan" prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, dated July 2022 was received and Regional staff have no objection to the TIS at the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment stage. Detailed comments will follow separately. Regional staff acknowledge payment of the TIS review fee of $500.00. Stormwater Management & Site Grading: Regional staff have received a copy of the Stormwater Management Report entitled "Functional Servicing & SWM Report, 459-509 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario" completed by JPE Engineering, dated July 12, 2022 and have no objection to the OPA/ZBA from a stormwater management perspective, however the following preliminary comments shall be addressed through the future site plan application. Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 554 of 601 The "Functional Engineering Plan" provided with the application proposes that the main storm outlet for the site would be located adjacent to the ION ditch at the southeast corner of the site. Regional rapid transit staff have reviewed the report and have no objection to this proposed stormwater management concept, provided post development flows are restricted to pre -development flows. Regional staff shall comment on the design and construction of the storm sewer outlet and overland flow outlet at the ION ditch through future design phase(s), but have the following comments related to integration with the ION Station at this time: It appears that the proposed stairs and ramp structure at the proposed plaza station connection encroach onto Regional property. The connection should be made at grade with any required stairs/ramp located on private property. There is an existing retaining wall located between the rear of 451 Mill Street to 485 Mill Street and the Mill ION platform. Under the future detailed design of the site, the grading of the proposed development and the building layout should be done in a way to remove the existing retaining wall. As the proposed sanitary sewer connection and water service connection for the development is from Mill Street, Regional staff have no comments related to these connections as Mill Street is a local municipal road. Finally, please ensure that any civil engineering plans and reports match the most recent Site Plans and Architectural Plans. Transit Planning Grand River Transit (GRT) currently operates numerous routes, including higher frequency transit, along both Ottawa Street South and Courtland Avenue East. There are no current GRT routes along this section of Mill Street, but access to transit is close to the proposed development. In addition to GRT routes, ION Light Rail Transit (LRT) currently operates along the rail corridor immediately adjacent to the proposed development. Direct pedestrian connections are proposed from the subject lands to the Mill ION stop and Regional staff support the proposed connections. Detailed comments related to the design and integration of the connections will be provided under a future site plan application. Regional Site Plan Review fee: The Region will require an $805.00 site plan review fee for a future site plan application. Hydrogeology and Source Water Programs The subject lands are located in Wellhead Protection Sensitive Area 8 (WPSA 8). Please be advised that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo does not support permanent active or passive dewatering controls for below -grade infrastructure, (e.g. foundations, slabs, parking garages, footings, piles, elevator shafts, etc.); therefore, below -grade infrastructure requiring dry conditions must be waterproofed. In addition, a prohibition on geothermal energy is required. The required wording is: Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 555 of 601 Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. 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 • 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan • Building Better Futures Framework • Region of Waterloo Official Plan 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. Should this development application move forward, staff ask the Owner/Developer to consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site, as defined in the Regional Official Plan. In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides, a mechanism should be in place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit, based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan, the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $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 oaseu un a ie nwst ieceni information avauaoie from the NNS housing I ables (2021). In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house price is $385,500. Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 556 of 601 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 $1,470 household income for low and moderate 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 Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Review and compatibility review fees of $11,000.00 (deposited August 25, 2022). Conclusions: Based on the above, the Region has no objection to the applications subject to the implementation of the following regulation, holding provisions and geothermal prohibition being included within the Zoning By-law Amendment: 1. The maximum height permitted on site for buildings any associated structures (e.g. rooftop HVAC, communication towers/antennas) and construction cranes shall be 487m ASL. 2. That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) in accordance with O. Reg. 953/04, as amended, has been filed on the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Environmental Site Registry and the RSC and Ministry's Acknowledgement letter is received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. This Holding Provision can be released in phases as each building is developed. 3. That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a detailed transportation, rail and stationary noise study have been completed and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the points of reception (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. The holding Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 557 of 601 provision can be lifted in phases/stages, as the detailed design of the corresponding building is known through the site plan process. 4. Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. 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. Next Steps: Please be advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19- 037 or any successor thereof. Further, 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 Senior Planner CC. Polocorp Inc. (C/O Mike Puopolo) — Owner Polocorp Inc. (C/O Matthew Warzecha) — Owner The Butler Group Consultants Inc. (C/O David A. Butler) -Agent Document Number: 4339860 Version: 1 Page 558 of 601 City of Kitchener Heritage — OPA/ZBA Comment Form Project Address: 455-509 Mill Street File Number: OPA22/008/M/CD, ZBA22/015/M/CD Comments Of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Deeksha Choudhry Email: deeksha.choudhry@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Date of Comments: August 30, 2022 Heritage Planning staff has reviewed the following material for the proposed development on the lands municipally addressed as 455-509 Mill Street to provide the comments outlined below: • Urban Design Report dated July 2022 • Planning Justification Report dated dated July 2022 • Architectural Drawings for the proposed development at 455-409 Mill Street 1. Site Specific Comments: The subject properties municipally addressed as 455-4509 Mill Street do not contain any protected or listed heritage resources under the Ontario Heritage Act. However, they are located adjacent to the Canadian National Railway Cultural Heritage Landscape, which is a high priority Cultural Heritage Landscape. Urban Design Report dated July 2022 In reviewing the Urban Design guidelines in the Urban Design Report prepared by Michael Spaziani Architects Inc, for the proposed development at 455-509 Mill Street, it is acknowledged that: "The building podiums and ground level of the proposed development have been designed to enhance the pedestrian experience through the use of human -scaled podium structures and the introduction of enhanced landscaping, well appointed street furnishings and varying surface materials. The character of the CN Rail heritage corridor has been maintained and no adverse impacts will be created by the proposed development. The proposed development does not encroach on the existing rail corridor lands and does not impact the current use of the corridor." A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 559 of 601 2. Heritage Planning Comments Heritage Planning Staff is satisfied with the analysis and do not have any further comments or concerns. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 560 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Craig Dumart Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 12:18 PM To: 'Matthew Warzecha' Subject: FW: WRDSB Circulation Comments: OPA22/008/M/CD & ZBA22/015/K/CD 455-509 Mill Street From: Christie Kent <christie_kent@wrdsb.ca> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 11:52 AM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Subject: WRDSB Circulation Comments: OPA22/008/M/CD & ZBA22/015/K/CD 455-509 Mill Street Good Morning Craig, The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the circulation for the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment which would facilitate the principle of land use for a mixed use development including approximately 1,500 residential units. It is requested that the WRDSB is circulated for pre -submission comments on any subsequent applications for Site Plan Control on the subject lands. At that time, the WRDSB would be in a better position to offer comments detailed comments on site considerations and potential impacts on student accommodation at the schools noted below. The WRDSB offers the following comments for information: Student Accommodation At this time, the subject lands are within the boundaries of the following WRDSB schools: Queen Elizabeth Public School (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6); Courtland Avenue Public School (Grade 7 to Grade 8); and Cameron Heights Collegiate Institute (Grade 9 to Grade 12). Student Transportation The WRDSB supports active transportation, and pedestrian safety and connectivity should be considered in site design and through the construction process. Please be advised that Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR)'s school buses will not travel privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up/drop off students. Transported students may be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point on a municipal right-of-way. As noted above, the WRDSB requests to be circulated on any subsequent submissions or revisions and reserves the right to comment further on detailed development proposals for the subject lands. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Christie Page 561 of 601 Christie Kent McIP RPP Senior Planner Waterloo Region District School Board 51 Ardelt Avenue, Kitchener ON, N2C 2R5 C: 226-748-4803 T: 519-570-0003 Ext. 4459 E: christie kentalwrdsb.ca Page 562 of 601 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 455-509 Mill St Application Type: OPA and ZBA Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) —City of Kitchener Commenter's name: Gaurang Khandelwal Email: gaurang.khandelwal@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7611 Written Comments Due: September 16, 2022 Date of comments: September 12, 2022 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application• ® Sustainability Statement, 459-509 Mill Street, prepared by The Butler Group Consultants Inc, dated July, 2022 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to allow for a mixed use development with six towers ranging in height from 13 to 32 storeys and a total FSR of 6.99 to be built on the subject lands including a total of 1473 residential units and approximately 2,789 square metres (30,020 square feet) of commercial floor area, regarding sustainability and energy conservation and provided the following: ® Based on my review of the supporting documentation, the proposed development is contemplated to, at a minimum, meet the Ontario Building Code for water and energy efficiency. ® Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is advanced, going forward all developments will need to include robust energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo) strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target. ® The subject property is located within the PARTS Rockway Plan Area, Section 10.13 of the PARTS Rockway Plan recommends that development is equivalent to achieving a minimum LEED/LEED ND — Silver rating or comparable sustainable development standard. ® It is strongly recommended that the proposed development incorporate sustainability measures that help achieve more efficient standards than the minimum OBC requirements and be equivalent to achieving a minimum LEED silver rating or comparable sustainable development standard. 1IPage Page 563 of 601 • A Sustainability Statement (as per the City's Terms of Reference) will be required as part of a complete Site Plan Application. It can build upon the information already provided and can further explore and/or confirm which additional sustainable measures are best suited to the development. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.4. Development applications will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City, through the completion of a Sustainability Report/Checklist in accordance with the Complete Application Requirements Policies in Section 17.E.10, that the proposal meets the sustainable development policies of the Plan and that sustainable development design standards are achieved. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy consumption. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated. Such studies may include, but not limited to an Energy Conservation Efficiency Study, a Feasibility Study for Renewable or Alternative Energy Systems, District Heating Feasibility Study, and the completion of a Sustainability Report/Checklist in accordance with the Complete Application Requirements Policies in Section 17.E.10. • 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. • PARTS Rockway Plan Section 10.13. The City has an interest in positioning the Rockway Station Area to exhibit leadership and advance best practices in the areas of sustainability and resilience. It is recommended to ensure that development in the PARTS Rockway Area is equivalent to achieving a minimum LEED / LEED ND — Silver rating or comparable sustainable development standard for Kitchener. The plan is available online at... httas://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN PARTS RockwayPlan. pdf 4. Advice: ➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability- initiative and TravelWise - http://www,sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise). ➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under 'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement 21 Page Page 564 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hi Craig, Lenore Ross Friday, March 24, 2023 1:55 PM Craig Dumart OPA22/008/M/CD and ZBA22/015/K/CD and response to PoloCorp letter Ltr to City re Parkland Comments.pdf Thanks for providing the response from PoloCorp to my comments of March 16 2023 related to the February 2023 resubmission of documents for OPA22/008/M/CD and ZBA22/015/K/CD. The letter acknowledges that the Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 is under appeal by PoloCorp and that the ultimate parkland dedication arrangements will be subject to the resolution of that on-going appeal. The letter confirms the 'in flux' nature of the lands at 455 Mill St which could potentially be dedicated to the City as parkland and, together with the current Regionally -owned lands at 451 Mill St, form part of.a potential public Entry Plaza. The commentary is accurate in that nothing has been decided and discussions are on-going. The letter also acknowledges that much of the application package illustrates only conceptual details and that the detailed design and programming of any public space, privately owned publicly accessible space and on-site private amenity areas will occur at the site plan stage and be informed by detailed studies to refine use and design. It is positive that PoloCorp is committed to collaborating with City staff through the detailed design phases and that they contemplate providing "outdoor seating areas, BBQ areas, basketball courts, dog runs, etc. as potential amenities within the private amenity areas. In addition to the outdoor amenity areas, residents will have access to a variety of indoor amenity spaces which could include party rooms, theatres, community lounges, a gym, etc." Inclusion of robust on-site amenities including such features as those the applicant has noted in the letter will help to address the recreational needs of the anticipated 2680 new residents in an area with little active public parkland and an identified deficit of neighbourhood park space. Through detailed design it will be critical to incorporate the required environmental mitigation measures identified in preliminary studies to achieve the extent and degree of amenities contemplated in the conceptual design package. I am satisfied with PoloCorp's response to my comments and questions and I look forward to working with the applicant and Planning staff through the site plan applications to achieve a high quality mixed use development that will provide robust active outdoor spaces and amenities for the new residents and for the larger community. Regards, Lenore Lenore Ross MSc, MCIP, RPP Parks Planning and Development Project Manager Design & Development I Parks and Cemeteries I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext 7427 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Lenore. Ross@Kitchener.ca Discover nature in the city: www.kitchener.ca/parks A City for (Everyone — Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 565 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 455-509 Mill St Owner: Polocorp Inc Application: OPA22/008/M/CD, ZBA22/015/K/CD Feb 2023 resubmission Comments Of: Parks and Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore.ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 Date of Comments: March 16 2023 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) 0 No meeting to be held ❑ 1 do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: I have reviewed the documentation noted below submitted in support of an OPA and ZBA to allow for a mixed use development with 5 towers ranging in heights from 15 to 44 storeys in height. A total FSR of 8.5 is proposed. The development will consist of 1500 residential units and—2600m2 of commercial floor area of the total proposed GFA of 169,497m2. ® Planning Justification Report prepared by Butler Group Consultants Inc, updated February 2023 ® Urban Design Report prepared by Michael Spaziani Architects Inc, updated February 2023; ® Pedestrian Wind Assessment prepared by RWDI, updated February 2023; ® Architecture Design Package prepared by Neo Architects, updated February 2023; 0 o Conceptual Site Plan; 0 o Elevations and Site Sections; 0 o Floor Plans; 0 o Tall Building Separation Analysis; 0 o Shadow Analysis; 0 o Material Palette; o Landscape Master Plan Package prepared by Land Art Design Landscape Architects Inc, updated February 2023. 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: 1. The parkland dedication requirement for this submission is deferred at the OPA/ZBA and will be assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the OPA and ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval. 2. These comments relate to a formal planning application that has been deemed complete prior to the passing of the new Park Dedication By-law 2022-101 and Policy and thus if Final Site Plan Approval can be completed within the proscribed transition period (August 22 2023), the old A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Pae 1 of 5 i9age 566 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change/ Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Parkland Dedication rates and categories can be utilized. If not complete within one year, the rates and categories contained within the new By-law will apply. The Bylaw is under appeal. 3. Additional caps and limitations to Parkland Dedication have been implemented by the Province through the More Homes Built Faster Act and these will impact this development. 4. As a result of the proposed intensification and the identified parkland deficit in this Planning Community and in the Planning Communities that are immediately adjacent to this proposed development, it is expected that Park Dedication will be provided, at least in part, through the physical dedication of land with the balance being provided as cash in lieu of land. 5. The proposed plans and documents show four landscaped features as POPS areas to be retained by the development and some documents label the Regional lands and the Entry Plaza as City Park; please clarify. If additional land is available off-site to address active park needs in this community, that could be considered as part of the parkland dedication requirements at the site plan application. 6. The UDB and PJR outline a number of community benefits including community centre space with financial support and construction and maintenance of the Entry Plaza. How will these items be secured? 7. Privately -owned, publicly accessible spaces may be considered according to the recently approved Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Policy (under appeal). The inclusion of high-quality spaces such as the Station Plaza and Promenade illustrated in the Planning Justification Report, Urban Design Brief and Landscape Master Plan Package are positive and the value and contribution of the space towards Parkland Dedication will be further assessed at the site plan application stage. Any areas considered for partial POPS credit for Parkland Dedication at the Site Plan Application stage will be for land value only (costs of constructed features or maintenance will not be included in Parkland Dedication partial credits). Exclusive use areas assigned to either commercial or residential tenants will be excluded and Parkland Dedication Plans will be required to confirm calculations. Public access easements will be required. 8. Park Dedication reductions (for secured affordable rental housing), exemptions (commercial space) and credits (existing residential units) will also be applied at the site plan application according to Park Dedication Bylaw and Policy. 3. Comments on Submitted Documents The following comments should be addressed at this time. 1) Urban Design Report prepared by Michael Spaziani Architects Inc, updated February 2023; a) Pg 47- Streetscape Design –'The Mill Street streetscape profile within the public right-of-way, after the required road widening, will be consistent across the length of the Site (Figure -5 36). From the new property line toward the street, the profile will consist of a 2.4 metre wide sidewalk, 1.3 metre landscaped strip, and a reconstructed 2.9 metre multi -use trail. A 0.85 A City for Everyone Working Together– Growing Thoughtfully – Building Community Page �b of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form metre wide buffer will be provided between the multi -use trail and Mill Street." Including both a 3m MUT and a 2.4m CSW seems duplicative, and this cross section should be confirmed with Development Engineering and Transportation. Sufficient space and soil volumes for street trees should be accommodated within the right of way according to Development Manual specifications. b) Pg 54-63 Public Amenity Areas — Apart from the "Play Area" and the possible central feature of "Station Plaza" it appears that much of the proposed Privately Owned Public Space (POPS) is sidewalk area and passive seating rather than active park space. Any areas considered for partial POPS credit for Parkland Dedication at the Site Plan Application stage will be for land value only (costs of constructed features or maintenance will not be included in Parkland Dedication partial credits). Exclusive use areas assigned to either commercial or residential tenants will be excluded. Public access easements will be required. c) While the PJR, UDB and Master Landscape Package provide considerable details for the proposed POPS areas, few conceptual details or commitments are provided for therip vate on-site amenity spaces. Providing adequate and usable private on-site amenity space is critical for the 2680 new residents in an area with little active public parkland and the PJR and UDB should include these commitments and conceptual details. d) An update to the UDB should be provided. 2) Planning Justification Report prepared by Butler Group Consultants Inc, updated February 2023 (PJR) a) The report acknowledges the lack of formal park space in the Rockway Planning Community and Places & Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener confirms this identifying only 4.5sq.m./person for the community. Although within the Rockway Planning Community, the site is immediately adjacent to the Mill Courtland Community, and this Community also has a deficient level of active neighbourhood park space and is assessed as a "High" priority for land acquisition through development applications. This site is more than 750m from active public park facilities. b) The PJR anticipates that Station Plaza, the Promenade and the Play Area will be Privately owned Public Spaces within the development and that the 455 Mill St property may be dedicated as public park space and possibly combined with the Regionally owned lands at 451 Mill St. If the 455 Mill St lands are dedicated to the City in partial fulfillment of the required Parkland Dedication, credit will be for land only not the construction of any features. A separate Developer Build Agreement including a Cost Estimate and Cost Sharing arrangements will be required to refine the design concept in the Master Landscape Package in conjunction with City staff c) While the PJR, UDB and Master Landscape Package provide considerable details for the proposed POPS areas, few conceptual details or commitments are provided for the private on-site amenity spaces. Providing adequate and usable private on-site amenity space is critical for the 2680 new residents in an area with little active public parkland and the PJR and UDB should include these commitments and conceptual details. d) Using the proposed 1500 units approximately 2680 people will reside in this development. With the limited active public park spaces or active POPS areas available in the neighbourhood, this deficit of neighbourhood park space would worsen. e) An update to the PJR should be provided A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 3of5 Page 568 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form 3) Landscape Master Plan Package prepared by Land Art Design Landscape Architects Inc, updated February 2023. a) Pg 24 - Please confirm Mill St cross section with Development Engineering and Transportation Planning; having both a 3m MUT and a 2.4m CSW seems duplicative. Sufficient space and soil volumes for street trees should be accommodated within the right of way to Development Manual standards. Adequate soil volumes and street trees will be required as part of Site Plan applications. b) If the 455 Mill St property is to be conveyed to the City as physical parkland, A Developer Build Agreement including a Cost Estimate and Cost Sharing arrangements will be required to refine the design concept in the Master Landscape Package in conjunction with City staff. 4) Pedestrian Wind Assessment prepared by RWDI, updated February 2023 a) The report indicates that even with the revised layout, the proposed Station Plaza will be vulnerable to prevailing winds funneling between buildings A and B causing uncomfortable and potentially unsafe wind conditions. This will impact the feasibility and usability of any active recreational use in this proposed POPS area. b) The report highlights the need for mitigation of wind through landscape plantings for the Entry Plaza and Play Area. The below grade and structural design for the at -grade landscape needs should accommodate the loads associated with adequate soil volumes and saturated weights to permit the required vegetation to grow and mature. c) The report also highlights the likelihood that above -grade private amenity spaces on roof terraces will have significant negative wind impacts. Providing adequate and usable on-site amenity space is critical for the 2680 new residents proposed through this development application and the conceptual images and commitments to high-quality on-site amenity spaces should include wind mitigation. 5) Preliminary discussions with the developer and the Region have taken place regarding the sale of a portion of the 451 Mill St property to the City to be used as park space; this will need to be further detailed prior to final site plan approval for the first phase 6) The proposed POPS areas will be considered according to the Park Dedication Bylaw and Park Dedication Policy. Given the adjacent ION LRT and Regional lands, close coordination of design details will be required with the RMOW 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: ® Kitchener Official Plan As per Section 8.C.2 — Urban Forests of the Official Plan ... o policy 8.C.2.16., the City requires the preparation and submission of a tree management plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available on the City's Website), as a condition of a development application. o policy 8.C.2.6., the City will incorporate existing and/or new trees into the streetscape or road rights-of-way and encourage new development or redevelopment to incorporate, protect and conserve existing healthy trees and woodlands in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in Section 13 (Landscape and Natural Features) of the Urban Design Manual (UDM) and the Development Manual. o Please see UDM Part C, Section 13 and www.kitchener.ca/treemanagement for detailed submission requirements City of Kitchener Parkland Dedication By law 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy City of Kitchener Development Manual A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 4 of 5 Page 569 of 601 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form • PARTS Rockway Plan • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law • Places & Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener • Urban Design Manual 5. Anticipated Fees: Parkland Dedication The parkland dedication requirement for this submission is deferred and will be assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the OPA and ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval As a result of the identified parkland deficit in this Planning Community and in Planning Communities that are immediately adjacent to this proposed development, it is expected that Park Dedication will be provided, at least in part, through the physical dedication of land with the balance being provided as cash in lieu of land. Privately owned, publicly accessible spaces can be considered according to the recently approved but under appeal Park Dedication Bylaw and Policy. Similarly, Park Dedication reductions (for secured affordable rental housing), exemptions (commercial space) and credits (existing residential units) will be applied according to the By-law and Policy in effect at Site Plan. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 5 of 5 Page 570 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Steven Ryder Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 10:16 AM To: 'Matthew Warzecha'; Craig Dumart Cc: Joseph Puopolo; Mike Puopolo; MCIP RPP David A. Butler Subject: RE: 455-509 Mill St updated submission comments Hi Matthew, Thank you for your response and the added context from the developers perspective. I think that answers our questions and I do not have any further concerns and are supportive of the proposed OPA and ZBA and the associated materials provided. If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know. Regards, Steven Ryder, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext 71521 TTY. 1-866-969-9994 1 Steven. R. der. e,kitchener.ca elf U: �146 I From: Matthew Warzecha <matthew@polocorpinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 2:40 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca> Cc: Joseph Puopolo <joseph@polocorpinc.com>; Mike Puopolo <mike@polocorpinc.com>; MCIP RPP David A. Butler <dab@butlerconsultants.com> Subject: RE: 455-509 Mill St updated submission comments Hi Craig and Steve, To provide some clarification, the revised Concept includes a total of 1,150 parking spaces whereas the previous plan proposed a total of 926 spaces (difference of 224 spaces). The additional spaces have, primarily, been provided through structured parking provided within the building podiums. Steve correctly notes, however, that 1,150 spaces equals a rate of —0.73 spaces per unit whereas we are proposing a rate of 0.6 spaces per unit in our Zoning By-law. The reason for this is two -fold: 1. To accommodate the 'dip' in the overall provided parking rate as we move through the phases of development. 2. Maintain flexibility in the required parking through the phases, should market demand shift through the duration of the project (-10 years). This also maintains flexibility as we move through detailed design of this complex project. Hope this helps clarify. Please let me know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss further. Cheers, Page 571 of 601 Matthew Warzecha MCIP RPP Director of Planning and Development I Polocorp Inc. 379 Queen Street South I Kitchener, ON I N2G 1W6 P: 519-745-3249, ext. 203 1 F: 519-208-3004 imattll�.eW.�p l ccsirJiirn ,. .rrl j � I This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the addressee. Disclosure of this e-mail to anyone else is not intended as a waiver of confidentiality or privilege. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately. To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Subject: 455-509 Mill St updated submission comments Hi Craig, Attached are our comments based on the recent update to the submission. A couple items I am looking for confirmation on regarding the parking — the updated letter indicates that they have increased the vehicle parking count, but that is not reflected in their ZBA outline. Also, they have proposed unassigned parking for all uses, but we need to see designated spaces for shared commercial/visitor parking to prevent overflow into the neighbourhood for short-term parking. No issues if they want to make all other parking unassigned (especially if they have increased the supply as it seems), but we do need to see 0.05 spaces per unit designated for visitor/commercial use only. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Regards, Steven Ryder, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext 71521 TTY. 1-866-969-9994 1 Steven. R. der. e,kitchener.ca Page 573 of 601 City of Kitchener OPA/ZBA COMMENT FORM Project Address: 455-509 Mill Street Date of Meeting: No meeting — email circulation Application Type: ZBA & OPA Comments Of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Steve Ryder Email: steven.ryder@kitchener.ca Phone: (519) 7412200 ext. 7152 Date of Comments: March 17, 2023 (updated submission received February 23, 2023) ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments & Issues: *NOTE: As mentioned in previous comments for this proposed development, a road widening along the Mill Street frontage is required as noted in the Official Plan (Schedule D). The road widening required is approximately 4.Om wide and must be adjusted to include all of the properties now a part of the overall development proposal (#455-#509). In order to achieve full site plan approval in the future, the following will be required as part of the road widening process: ® Reference Plan to be submitted to the satisfaction of Transportation Services; ® Phase 1 ESA submitted to Engineering for review and approval (A Phase 2 ESA may be required depending on the results of the Phase 1); ® Below is a rough estimate of the land to be dedicated via the road widening, how ensure this is all confirmed via an OLS. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 574 of 601 `-r J1 490 V,�C�/ +: - M1CL f' Ud98R !(l SL- . l l 4s1 J r C, l � . 495 �l ROCKWAY 509 I �J Traffic Impact Study Comment Response & New Development Plan: ® As per the submitted comment response letter from Paradigm Transportation Solutions; Transportation Services acknowledges the following: o Staff conducted discussions with Polocorp regarding pedestrian access and circulation throughout the site, raised crossing feature within the internal roadway system, the provision of publicly accessible, secured bicycle parking in the Station Plaza area to support users of the ION Rail; ■ NOTE: Design details will be confirmed throughout the site plan application process; o That Region of Waterloo staff have no major concerns with the conclusions and recommendations of the Traffic Impact Study (and Parking Study) and support the OPA/ZBA moving forward; o Region of Waterloo staff to work with the applicant and City of Kitchener on the following: ■ Implement the development parking strategy outlined in the parking study; ■ Applicant consider providing space for a future Regional e-bike/e-scooter shared system station & parking that residents and visitors can utilize; ■ That Car -share space(s) be publicly accessible, and the City/applicant consider the most established car -share provider (Communauto) as well as CarShare Anywhere; o That the updated development plan includes the following: ■ 1,500 residential units (unchanged) 2,013 sq. m of commercial space (less than original concept) ® 1,141 total vehicle parking spaces (increased by 217 spaces from original concept) u 1,184 Class A secure bicycle parking spaces (unchanged) 80 Class B bicycle parking spaces (increased by 80 from original concept) A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 575 of 601 o There are no significant impacts of these proposed changes: ■ Less estimated site traffic generation; ® No changes to the conclusion that no transportation network improvements will be required due to less estimated site traffic; Transportation Services comments: ® Transportation Services are generally supportive of the updated development proposal and the changes included, but some confirmation is still required; ® The exact breakdown of residential/commercial/visitor parking should be noted to confirmation the parking rates sought for the ZBA; o The site plan in the appendix of the updated P1R notes only 900 parking spaces (see below), while the comment response letter notes 1,141 total spaces. Confirm the total number and the breakdown between uses; ® Transportation Services can support a shared parking model between commercial and visitor parking; however, it is imperative that there is parking designated for commercial and visitor parking as the development cannot rely on neighbouring streets for short-term parking in the vent that residents use up the proposed unassigned parking spaces; ® In conclusion, Transportation Services can support 0.55 residential spaces per unit, plus 0.05 spaces per unit for visitor & commercial parking, however, the amount of spaces needs to confirmed and the proposed rates potentially adjusted to match what is being provided via the updated development concept; o Any additional spaces allocated for visitor and commercial would be supported, as well; ® A Letter of Understanding will be required as part of the site plan application process that outlines all of the TDM measures that will be implemented in the development by the applicant; o This includes car -share, any parking strategies; travel planning & education & promotion, and any other measures that have been considered. 2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application: ® N/A 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: m Approved reference plan for lands to be dedicated via road widening; o Letter of Understanding (for TDM measures). 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: m N/A A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 576 of 601 zoning oats grass City orxitftener 2M 9-031 ZECnON 5.8 Regulations (re5le 53) R"Llired '. _ 11-RipDO 77W fiv Provided - cordo—s . Proyoaed Zoning (1LPX4 Edo-EpeciYc) - .6.9 Min5munt paang cpacea per dnd4ng unit (f,350 syat�) Na O.55spacs per &Ming unit (Approx. 82: spaces) 6fin;m%¢rt lfr:orParfcing,Faces 0.1 per dne]Eng unit No '0.45 spaces per duelling un[t 0.73 per duelling unit o (750 spaces) (7,180 spates) (Ar^prux.75 spaces) ® Transportation Services can support a shared parking model between commercial and visitor parking; however, it is imperative that there is parking designated for commercial and visitor parking as the development cannot rely on neighbouring streets for short-term parking in the vent that residents use up the proposed unassigned parking spaces; ® In conclusion, Transportation Services can support 0.55 residential spaces per unit, plus 0.05 spaces per unit for visitor & commercial parking, however, the amount of spaces needs to confirmed and the proposed rates potentially adjusted to match what is being provided via the updated development concept; o Any additional spaces allocated for visitor and commercial would be supported, as well; ® A Letter of Understanding will be required as part of the site plan application process that outlines all of the TDM measures that will be implemented in the development by the applicant; o This includes car -share, any parking strategies; travel planning & education & promotion, and any other measures that have been considered. 2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application: ® N/A 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: m Approved reference plan for lands to be dedicated via road widening; o Letter of Understanding (for TDM measures). 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: m N/A A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 576 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Sent: Ashkan Matlabi <Ashkan.Matlabi@cn.ca> on behalf of proximit < Thursday, August 12, 2021 7:03 PM Y proximity@cn.ca> To: Craig Dumart Subject: 2021-08-12-CN_RES_459-485 Mill Street Notice of (OPA?ZBA) Pre-submissio Consultation Mtg - n Hello Craig, - Thank you for consulting CN on the application mentioned in subject. It is noted that the sub' ects I ite is Branch Line. CN has concerns of develop ing/densifying residential uses abutting our railway right-of-way. adjacent to Development of sensitive uses in proximity to railway operations cultivates an environment in which land use incom tiDevy issues ent are exacerbated. CN's guidelines reinforce the safety and well-being of any existing and future occupants of t p bility issues Please refer to CN's guidelines for the development of sensitive uses in proximity to railways. These policies have been p he area. developed by the Railway Association of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. CN encourages the municipality to pursue the implementation of the following criteria as conditions project approval: ons of an eventual I. Safety setback of habitable buildings from the railway rights-of-way to be a minimum of 15 metres in conjunction with a safety be1.rm. The safety berm shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights-of-wa returns at the ends, 2 meters above grade at the property line, with side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to Y with 2. The Owner shall install and maintain a chain link fence of minimum 1.83 meter height along the e mutual property 3. The Owner shall engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise. At a minimum a no' barrier shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights-of-way, having returns at the ends,andminim total height of 5.5 metres above top -of -rail. Acoustic fence to be constructed without openings and of a .mum material weighing not less than 20 kg. per square metre of surface area. Subject to the review of the not durable report, the Railway may consider other measures recommended b an a noise Y approved Noise Consultant. 4. Ground -borne vibration transmission to be evaluated in a report through site testingto deter within 75 meters of the railway rights-of-way will be impacted by vibration conditios in excess determine 0.14wmlm/nsec RMS between 4 Hz and 200 Hz. The monitoring system should be capable of measuring frequencies betw Hz and 200 Hz, ±3 dB with an RMS averaging time constant of 1 second. If in excess, isolation mea een 4 required to ensure living areas do not exceed 0.14 mm/sec RMS on and above the first floor of the dwellinll be g• 5. The following clause should be inserted in all development agreements, offers to purchase, and agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease of each dwelling unit within 300m of the railway right-of-way: Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or h way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the hts-of- railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating me asures in design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way." Page 577 of 601 6. The storm water management facility must be designed to direct all run off waters away from CN right of way. Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantiated by a drainage report to the satisfaction of the Railway. 7. The Owner shall through restrictive covenants to be registered on title and all agreements of purchase and sale or lease provide notice to the public that the safety berm, fencing and vibration isolation measures implemented are not to be tampered with or altered and further that the Owner shall have sole responsibility for and shall maintain these measures to the satisfaction of CN. 8. The Owner shall enter into an Agreement with CN stipulating how CN's concerns will be resolved and will pay CN's reasonable costs in preparing and negotiating the agreement. 9. The Owner shall be required to grant CN an environmental easement for operational noise and vibration emissions, registered against the subject property in favour of CN. CN anticipates the opportunity to review a detailed site plan, a N&V study and a storm water management report taking into consideration the CN development guidelines. Thank you and don't hesitate to contact me for any questions. Best regards Ashkan Matlabi, Urb. OUQ. MBA Urbaniste senior / Senior Planner (CN Proximity) Planning, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design Urbanisme, architecture de paysage et design urbain E: ProximitvCc aca T: 1-438-459-9190 1600, Rene -Levesque Ouest, 11e etage Montreal (Quebec) H3H 1 P9 CANADA wsD.com From: Joanne Sutherland <Joanne.Sutherland@kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 202110:29 AM CAUTION: This ern ali originated from outside CN. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender AND KNOW the content is safe AVERTISSENIENT • ce courriel provient dune source externe au CN : NE CLIQUEZ SUR AUCUN lien ou piece jointe a moins de reconnaitre A pre -submission consultation meeting has been scheduled as detailed below. Files are saved in AMANDA (folder # 21- 125224 ) for internal staff and Sharefile folder for external agencies. Please feel free to forward to a delegate or anyone else that may have an interest. PLEASE NOTE: PRE -SUBMISSION CONSULTATION APPLICATIONS ARE' CONFIDENTIAL'. Page 578 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Seth Wynes n> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2022 8:12 PM To: Debbie Chapman Cc: Craig Dumart Subject: development on 455 Mill Street Dear Mr. Dumart, As a resident of Ward 9, 1 would like to express my support for the new development at 455 Mill Street. Given the extreme shortage of housing in our city it would be great to see almost 1500 new homes, all located directly next to a light rail station, with the fantastic iron horse trail nearby. It seems that the developers had this in mind as there are enough bicycle parking spaces for each home to have one spot. The smaller number of parking spaces for personal vehicles is also a strong feature of the project. There is no need for excessive bundled parking that will increase the cost of each home in the building when there are so many options for active transport and public transit nearby. Thank you for your work and I hope we get to see shovels in the ground in the near future! Warm regards, Seth Wynes Page 579 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Sent Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:32 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: Notifications re Mill Street development You don't often get email from jprodela@LALIma.org. Learn why this is irnDortant Hello Mr. Dumart - thank you -for tonight's presentation. We are generally very supportive of this development although with trepidation regarding Sunday noise and parking lot management - a particular challenge in this neighbourhood in winter. Please ,?dd these email addresses to future notifications about this and the mailing address: c»— ' - - Kitchener ON (Please note - we changed our name a decade ago from First Unitarian Cong of Waterloo to Grand River Unitarian; your map still shows our old name). In faith, Rev. Jess GRAND RIVER UNITARIAN CONGREGATION *| strive to respond to email messages within 48 hours. Please note that Tuesday is my weekly day off, and my online presence islimited onFridays and Sunday. For emergencies, please use the phone instead.* 1 Page 580 of 601 Craig Dumart From: rob robring.tv Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:00 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: tonight's meeting You don't often get email from I just want to remind the City that we did not move into a property on the LRT route... you decided to build the LRT in front of our house. My kids have grown up in a construction zone, and I'm not thrilled about that. The prospect of another major construction project in our neighbourhood is not exactly welcome. Rob Ring You may find that 1 work unusual hours. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside of your scheduled working hours. Let's work together to ensure we achieve the results we want while fostering healthy work -life boundaries. Page 581 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Walter Eckhardt Sent: Wednesday, January 11' 2023 8:11 AM To: [migDumart Subject: Re: 455-5O9Mill Street UP/yZQANeighbourhood Meeting Sir VVeown the nearby industrial property ot13OImperial Drive. While I am unable to attend this meeting, please note that we are entirely supportive of the proposed development. Our city needs more housing, especially near the Ion stations. Walter Eckhardt Principal + Connect with us: On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 5:29 PM Craig Dumart wrote: Good morning, As a reminder, the 455-509 Mill Street proposed development Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday January 24th at 7pm. The postcard below provides more information on the zoom meeting . Page 582 of 601 Craig Dumart From: K4auraQuish Sent Thursday, September 15,2O22 5:39 PM To: CmigDumart Cc dehbiezhepman@kithcener.ca Subject: RE: 455 509 k4iU Street Kitchener YOU don't often get email from r 2arn Why thi� is important Thanks for your response below. | have found the limited information ondevelopments onthe website. | don't see the developers name included in these sites but I need to spend some more time reviewing this. Please know | have nninterest bike spots atnyage, and given our climate, | would only use abike inJune, July and August. | have mobility issues and bikes do not assist me ingetting around. As for ION, this should not be an exception for developers to reduce parking and I feel it is creating a hazard when you have developments of this size with reduced parking; I would not have visitor spots for health providers, etc. The amount of development does not appear to be in line with our infrastructure. | see noreason why abuilding should betaller than 6floors. Noted in today's paper, the Vive developer wants more floors to an already too tall building at the old Schwaben My question is again, how many thousands of people are you and the city expecting to be able cram onto the ION? Are you calculating the number of units, people in each unit, against the reduced parking spotsper site, and add the number of citizens you expect to use it? ALnotime have any ufthese developments contributed toeasing our housing crisis (which isanaffordable one, not one of supply). Why is the city constantly amending bylaws for developers, but yet no real plans for affordable housing. The request from this developer should include a commitment that the development include 50% affordable housing - meaning individuals earning minimum wage should beable 10 rent unit. Why can't this city plan like Guelph (much better planning with more green space and no towers) ... orMilton where development was paused to make sure water and infrastructure could support the level of development occurring.? I will be retiring soon and have much more time to devote to seeking answers from city councillors and planners. Deb, your on city council, why? From: Craig Dumort<Craig.Duma rt@kitchen ecca> Sent: Friday, August 26,2O2211:O8AK4 To: MauraO;ish^ Cc:debbie.chapman@kithcener.ca Subject: RE: 4S5 SO9Mill Street -Kitchener Caution - External Email -This Message comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on unrecognized links or Page 583 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Mary Beth Nikel Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 1:23 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: Comments for 455-509 Mill Street Proposed Development Hi Craig, I am a nearby resident to this proposed development on Mill Street. While still surprised at the proposed density of this development, it is interesting to see a local architect and developer re -envision the Mill -Courtland area around the Mill rapid transit station. The addition of mixed-use space will hopefully create vibrancy in the area, with the addition of a community centre, retail and public plaza. Below are comments and concerns that I have with this development: 1) With an irregular shaped lot, 6 towers on 5.25 acres seems really dense for the lot. Would it not be better to have 4 or 5 higher towers with some additional outdoor parking, landscaping and usable public park space? 2) 1 am concerned about the request for site's reductions in the rear and interior side yards. The location near the transit station still needs space surrounding the buildings to make it safe for people to access the ION station from the buildings, by avoiding crowding and maintaining sightlines of oncoming ION and CN trains. 3) 1 am concerned about the safety of pedestrians at the Ion tracks on Mill Street (near 455 Mill), and the potential for pedestrian/vehicle/ION accidents. When turning right onto Mill Street you have to do a complete check to see if the ION is coming, and also check if pedestrians or cyclists are trying to cross Mill. Adding to the population in this area, without proper signalled crosswalks, increases risk. 4) The park at 560 m2, community centre at 2,000 sq ft and plaza are small compared to the number of residents in this proposed development. It will be difficult for the outside public to use the park and community centre if there is not enough space for everyone. 5) 50 affordable housing units out of 1,500 is not adequate and will not help much to meet the demand for these units. It would be great to see at least 10% of the units be affordable housing. This is necessary in a PARTS development. Thank you for considering my comments and concerns, Mary Beth Mary Beth Nikei t Page 584 of 601 Ir .......... I'll, From: hui shi - Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 5:25 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: The development at 455-509 Mill Street You don't often get email from shihuica@yahoo.ca. Learn why this is important Ffi Craig, I am writing to comment about the development at 455-509 Mill street. While we welcome new developments in this area/neighborhood, we also have following concerns/comments for you/city to consider. 1. The Current proposed buildings are too dense. It looks like these buildings are all very close to each other and there is no any space in between. The density should be reduced. Otherwise the nearby properties and the neighborhood as a whole will be negatively affected. 2. The proposed parking spots are too few. At least one parking spot for each residential unit, in addition to sufficient spots for visitors and cornmercial spaces are required. Otherwise the neighborhood will be negatively affected. 3. The proposed building along Mill street is too close to the street. It will negatively impact the streetscape. Much great setback is necessary. Regards, 502 Mill Street Page 585 of 601 You don't often get email from [raigDumart [KDeGmaf ~ _, Wednesday,August 24,2O2Z1O:07Ak4 Craig Dumart Project 455-509 Mill St. Tower development arn why this i�_jo2pgrtant Thank you for sending out the information flyer about the proposed development project for 455-509 Mill St. I am very interested in the project. I live down the street and would love to continue to be in the information loop. Thank you from R,Curtis DeGnsaf Page 586 of 601 You don't often get email from Hello Craig, I hope this email finds you well. Sandra Henderson Wednesday, August 17'2O2211:31AK4 [naigDumart RodneyFe|ka 455-50BMill Street, Kitchener I received a flyer in the mail regarding a proposed development for 455-509 Mill Street in Kitchener, for which you are noted asthe Senior Planner ofthe project. We own 453 Courtland Avenue in Kitchener, not far from the proposed development. Central Automotive currently occupies this property. While we dm not have any objections tothe project a1this time (without many details available to us), we would like to have some feedback regarding the foUowin8- 1. Atwhat stage isthis proposal? |sthere azone change required? |fso, isbonly atthe application stage? Or are you currently atthe site plan stage? Z. Has there been or will there be an Environmental Assessment (Phase I or 11) required for this property? Will the results ofthat assessment bemade public? VVeare very much interested inknowing the results ofthat assessment ifpossible. |tmay give ussome idea astowhat lies under our property. 3. What if any road improvements will occur there and may possibly affect the area around our property. 4. What isthe timing ofthis project interms ofstart and completion? Will itbedeveloped inphases nrall at once? I left a voice message for you and would very much appreciate a call back or at least a response to this email. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Sandra Henderson Page 587 of 601 From: juerg viUig _ ~ Sent: Monday, August 15,2O221[:3OPk4 To: [|aigDumart Subject: 455 - 509 Mill street application for development YOU don't often get email kon Hi Craig, I received a application for development in the mail today. I am not in favour of this development and feel it doesn't suite the old residential area . Potentially up to 1473 residential units combined with 686 parking spaces and commercial space in a tiny area is I feel build it in an area that's close to where you live , we have been living here for over 25 years now because of the location and area. This past year they built sidewalks on Mill street , now have no parking on the road , a 6 inch strip to shovel the snow in the winter beside the sidewalk when the plow comes bvNot sure who isonthe planning committee approvals for such a busy street but now have bicycle lanes on both sides of the street that are seldom used, Not best planning in my mind . In addition they have built a train station , and plans are also in place to build additional complex on Pattandon Ave as well . Get Outlook for Android Page 588 of 601 From: Tom Bresele m> Sent Monday, August 15,2O225:54Pk4 To: Craig Dumart Subject: 455-509 Mill st Developernent You don't often get email fro, Craig My only concern with this development is since it is pretty much due south of our location at hi, w/,n8will the backyard be in shadow caused by the high structures. Will the shadow be seasonally depenclant depending on the sun location relative tous. 32 stories, seem a little out of place so far from the downtown core. Is there anything this tall anywhere else in Kitchener? I guess we want a little of Toronto in are an area that is mostly residential, even though those lots look commercial to me currently. Regards TomBrese|e Page 589 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Emmy Nordstrom Higdon Sent: Sunday, August 14,2O224:30PK4 To: CmigDumort Subject: Concerns re: 455-5O9 Mill Street YOU don't often get email from .^om. Learn whv this is imoortant Hi Craig, My partner, Sarah, and I recently moved into Ward 9, Debbie Chapman's ward in Kitchener. We are an upper middle class couple working in tech and publishing respectively. We are both super disappointed to see the application for development for 455-5U9 Mill Street. We left Toronto because of the devastation of our neighbourhood by high rises, which have low mental health outcomes for those residing in them, tend to cater to higher -income professional residents rather than middle-income blue collar residents (the majority of the population in this area), and don't offer sustainable services due tothe high number ofresidents and relatively |ovv ratio ofmixed-use space. Low-rise developments have been shown to have greater positive impact on communities and ecosystems in the long term. | also did a little research on the development company, who clearly build developments catering toward high income residents, and who have limited experience in the high rise sector. Most of their developments have been suburban low rise or single family projects. As such, I don't expect to see units in this development be priced accessibly, or cater to families, multi -generational family groups in particular, disabled folks, etc. Given the diversity of this neighbourhood and the rising cost of living in this area, that seems particularly problematic. I would love to see what kind of environmental and sustainability guarantees there are for this project, and | think b should absolutely be required that a high percentage of units be at minimum 3 bedrooms+, and that they have a percentage set aside for affordability, Finally, the lack of green space proposed in this plan is disappointing, and it would be great to see how much space will be set aside specifically for use by children, pets, etc., since greenery and access to natural and developed spaces is imperative for productivity and health of residents. Emmy Nordstrom Higdon, PhD (Pronouns: they, thern) Iff Page 590 of 601 Good morning, Thank you for providing comments. You have been added to the email distribution list to keep you informed on the proposed development. The proposed development is in the very early stages. There will be a neighbourhood meeting scheduled for late fall to discuss the proposed development further with residents. Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7073 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 craig.dumarta-kitchener.ca From: Walter Eckhardt _ Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 1:37 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.DUmart@kitchener.ca>; Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>; mike@polocorpinc.com Subject: comments on Development Application at 455-509 Mill Street You don't often get email from why this is important U Mr Dumart, We recently acquired property at 130 Imperial Drive that is very near to the 455 Mill Street parcel. We plan to operate a wholesale business there. We are supportive of the above application in particular, and urban densification near Mill Street station and other Ion stations in general. 0) Page 591 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Walter Eckhardt Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 1:25 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: Re: comments on Development Application at 455-509 Mill Street You don't often get email from rn why this is important I hope staff and council don't give excessive weight to NIMBY whining because 1. Our city urgently needs more housing. Constrained urban housing supply has created house pricing that drives young buyers away. My kids' friends all commute from Baden, Shakespeare and Milverton - where they can afford to own homes, all to the detriment of both the environment and the commuters' lifestyles. 2. The LRT cost many times what buses cost. That huge taxpayer investment only makes sense if we finish the job and densify around the nodes. Thanks for considering my views. Regards, W— Walter Eckhardt Principal Connect with us: On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:15 AM Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> wrote: 1 Page 592 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Emmy Nordstrom Higdon Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 2:05 PM To: Craig Dumart Subject: Re: Concerns re: 455-509 Mill Street You don't often get email from saskeah@gmail.com..Learn why this is important Hi Craig, Will masks be required for the public meeting? Emmy Nordstrom Higdon, PhD (Pronouns: they, them) @emmy of spines www.emmy.000 Le ven. 26 aout 2022, a 11 h 02, Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> a ecrit : Good morning, Thank you for providing comments. The proposed development is in the very early stages. There will be a neighbourhood meeting scheduled for late fall to discuss the proposed development further with residents. Supporting documents for the proposed development can be found here: kitchen er.ca/PlanningApplications Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP 1 Page 593 of 601 Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7073 1 TTY 1-866-969-99941 craig.dumart(a)kitchener.ca From: Emmy Nordstrom Higdo Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2022 4:30 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Subject: Concerns re: 455-509 Mill Street You don't often get email from saskeah@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Hi Craig, My partner, Sarah, and I recently moved into Ward 9, Debbie Chapman's ward in Kitchener. We are an upper middle class couple working in tech and publishing respectively. We are both super disappointed to see the application for development for 455-509 Mill Street. We left Toronto because of the devastation of our neighbourhood by high rises, which have low mental health outcomes for those residing in them, tend to cater to higher -income professional residents rather than middle-income blue collar residents (the majority of the population in this area), and don't offer sustainable services due to the high number of residents and relatively low ratio of mixed-use space. Low-rise developments have been shown to have greater positive impact on communities and ecosystems in the long term. I also did a little research on the development company, who clearly build developments catering toward high income residents, and who have limited experience in the high rise sector. Most of their developments have been suburban low rise or single family projects. As such, I don't expect to see units in this development be priced accessibly, or cater to families, multi -generational family groups in particular, disabled folks, etc. Given the diversity of this neighbourhood and the rising cost of living in this area, that seems particularly problematic. I would love to see what kind of environmental and sustainability guarantees there are forth is project, and I think it should absolutely be required that a high percentage of units be at minimum 3 bedrooms+, and that they have a percentage set aside for affordability. Finally, the lack of green space proposed in this plan is disappointing, and it Page 594 of 601 would be great to see how much space will be set aside specifically for use by children, pets, etc., since greenery and access to natural and developed spaces is imperative for productivity and health of residents. Emmy Nordstrom Higdon, PhD (Pronouns: they, them) Page 595 of 601 Page 596 of 601 From: Maura Quish < Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 10:32 PM To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca> Cc: debbie.chapman@kithcener.ca Subject: 455 - 509 Mill Street - Kitchener You don't often get email from earn why this is important I am responding to the Notice of development application in the neighbourhood of 455 — 509 Mill Street posted in The Record. The notice indicates that "to learn more about this project.... Visit www.kitchener.ca/PlanningApplications." Unfortunately when I did that, the message I received is below: ;. Mill S--tre el x7 = rr u L< J - I I Cho data _ I is Please provide more information on this development. Based on what is provided in the notice in The Record, I object to the scale of this development on this site. Where is the greenspace built into this development; where are the trees in this development? 3 Page 597 of 601 While the City of Kitchener's Climate Action Plan is extremely limited, the goal to reduce emissions is placing almost all responsibility on the citizens with no responsibility on developers for incorporating climate action tools such as tress (at a minimum) is irresponsible on the part of planners, and others at city hall. Trees provide the most basic necessities for human life —they are our life support system. Cutting and removing trees from our environment is suicidal. Additionally, the amount of residences to parking spaces is woefully inadequate. Is it because the 24 ION vehicles are now going to be responsible for transporting more people? Regardless, if you are an elderly person or person with a disability, and you require in-home service, this development could not provide adequate parking for any health care providers, even those providers who drive emission reduced vehicles Why is this development so large in size with such minimal parking? Is the city expecting that we are all riding our bikes? That doesn't work well in December, January, February, March and often much of April, particularly in the evening in this climate. I guess that is how we are reducing emissions —we give up cars (even those with reduced emissions), and developers get to pour concrete (and glass — reflecting more sun and heat over the city) and I get to ride a bike or try to fit into one of the 24 ION vehicles. I object to this development and I request that tress and greenspace be incorporated into all developments in Kitchener but particularly in a development of this magnitude. Why can we not have a ratio of trees to be planted on a development site that coincides with the amount of residences proposed? Maura Quish Kitchener, Ontario Disclaimer - This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and contain privileged or copyright information. You must not present this message to another party without gaining permission from the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. We do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects although due care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board. Page 598 of 601 Craig Dumart From: Sandi H. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 4:29 PM To: Craig Dumart; Debbie Chapman Subject: Proposed Development - 455-509 Mill Street You don't often get email from tymflys@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important Dear Craig and Debbie, We recently received an information card in our mailbox about the proposed development at 455-509 Mill Street. We received this alert with a deep sigh of resignation but still, I wanted to submit my thoughts. My husband will be sending in an email as well. A little background on me. I grew up in Waterloo, living there since the early 1970s when I was in grammar school. I continued to live in Waterloo as an adult, working in the UpTown for over 30 years, and loving it! I always felt safe, loved supporting the wonderful local businesses, being close to the country and close enough to Pearson for overseas travel. There is so much to love about KW and 1 have always felt very lucky my parents chose to move here all those years ago. When I married, my husband and I moved to a small farm just outside of Baden with our horses and dog. We loved the farm but time passed, our lives changed, and ten years ago we left the country for the city, buying a charming little cottage -y home on Ottawa St S from the people who built it in 1950. We took a year to make our decision. We had looked at homes in Waterloo, Kitchener, Stratford, New Hamburg, Elmira, Baden and St Jacobs. Besides falling in love with the layout of the house and its large garden, we bought it because of the neighbourhood ... family homes, low rise apartments, mature trees, nearby trails and amenities. We were in the city but didn't feel like we were REALLY in the city. We were happy to call Kitchener our home. We moved in and were delighted to discover we had the more amazing neighbours on all sides that anyone could ask for. It was great! Then the LRT came to our neighbourhood. The construction was a total nightmare (no one seemed to know what was going on when, no one was accountable, calls and emails not returned, I could go on and on) and, although this isn't your concern at all or the focus here, we had a battle with the Region to return our property to the standard it was in when the construction started as per THEIR contract with homeowners. We finally got them to stand by their own documents but the experience certainly left a major sour taste on development in the region and how is is managed (or mismanaged) and how residents are treated and respected ... or not. I also saw this from a business level as I dealt with the LRT construction madness every day at work in UpTown Waterloo. NOT good times and I definitely view local development with different eyes now. Next up ... COVID! During COVID I was lucky to continue to work full-time, but from my home. As advised by Regional health authorities, I took daily walks for exercise and to help maintain good mental health during a stressful and frankly scary time for us all. The daily walks allowed me to get reacquainted with the streets around us, to appreciate the homes, the gardens, and again, to feel lucky about where I live. And now here we are, with a proposal for a large (and TALL!) development just down the street from us, and another one a couple blocks away. What are my thoughts on the development on Mill Street? After our experiences during the LRT construction, frankly I'm not sure why I'm even submitting an email as history shows local opinion on these sort of things carries almost no weight. Personally, I'm very concerned and saddened. Like everyone else, I realize that the only way for Waterloo and Kitchener to grow is up due to boundaries/city limits. Just look at the overdeveloped areas now in Waterloo like those on Albert Street, Columbia, King and many more to come I'm sure. Personally, I hate driving on the stretch of King from University to Columbia with its so called "vertical sprawl" (I believe that's the new jargon -y term?). It is claustrophobic. Unattractive. Lacking character. Dark. A wind tunnel. Overrun with high rise condos and apartments. Can anyone say mini -Toronto? I'm not surprised someone wants to construct a development right at an LRT station. Of course they do! I'd have to be incredibly naive to think developers wouldn't want to pounce and develop around every LRT station they could get planning permission for. And hey, those are big development dollars for the City of Kitchener and City of Waterloo. And goodness, isn't this just what Kitchener needs ... a condo development with combined res-com use! How necessary and innovative! (if you missed it, this is sarcasm). But minus sarcasm, proposing a 6 tower development, with their height Page 599 of 601 being up to 32 stories, in a neighbourhood of smaller 1950s home and low-rise apartments? Really? I'm almost beyond words and serious eye -rolling and head shaking is happening now. What is happening to our city and our neighbourhood? I am not an architect, a city planner or, quite obviously, a developer and far from an expert but I have read and viewed information on urban development and the future and some real experts seem to feel livability and being part of a community ends with the high rise. Kitchener always is pushing "community, community, community" but sticking up androgynous towers in new builds in urban neighbourhoods seems to go against this mandate. High rises have also been reported as being less environmentally friendly than low or mid -rise buildings and therefore less sustainable. Sustainability and environmental soundness... I'm thinking those have been pretty key amongst those in power in the City of K in recent years but quite possibly I've been mis-reading the goals for the city and its future. I'd be living in la -la land if I thought this proposed highrise development in the middle of our neighbourhood wouldn't happen. It will. I'd be a fool to think that a lot of the decision making on this development didn't involve the almighty dollar and fees the C of K and/or Region will get. I also would be ignorant if I thought my email would make a serious difference as, sadly, it won't. Still, living in Canada gives me the freedom to have my say and this is it. So, after all of that, I am against the development proposed for Mill Street, for what it is worth. If it goes ahead (which it will), I'd like to see the maximum height of the towers reduced to 10 stories. I know that won't happen and the developer would laugh if he or she read that wishlist item. I feel very, VERY badly for those who live on Mill Street, Acacia and across the street on Ottawa. We're all going to be negatively impacted by the increase in the already busy traffic on Ottawa this development will bring, but those living closest to this monstrosity will also have to contend with over- shadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy. If you made it to this end of this long email, congratulations and thank you for taking the time. I will continue to embrace the ambiance of my neighbourhood as is currently is for long as I can until what it was becomes a sweet memory and what it is, is something to be tolerated like the LRT. Sandi Henning ;itchener Page 600 of 601 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 455-509 Mill Street Concept Drawing Have Your Voice Heard! Date: April 24, 2023 Location: Council Cha�mlbbers,� Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West. or'Vii uall Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, meeting details, start time of this item or to appear as a delegation, visit: kitchener.ca/meetings To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: wwwAitchener.ca/ Plan n i ngAppl ications or contact: IIl�lii ":� L..1se 5 Toy/ei s, III 1.00i Brace Craig Dumart, Senior Planner Dev6[ i iu-niu t 1.5 to 44 III al,'i f 8' 519.741.2200 x 7073 Stoi eys craig.dumart@kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener will consider applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a high intensity mixed-use development with 5 towers ranging in heights from 15 to 44 storeys proposing a total Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 8.5. The mixed-use development will consist of approximately 1500 residential units, approximately 2000 square metres of commercial floor area, 1141 vehicle parking spaces and 1150 bicycle parkingRagg 601 of 601