No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2023-05-08Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Agenda Monday, May 8, 2023, 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 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(a)kitchener.ca. Please refer to the delegation section on the agenda below for in-person registration 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. Commencement 2. 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. 3. 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. 3.1 None. 4. 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: 00 p.m. on May 8, 2023, in order to participate electronically. 4.1 Item 5.1 - Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning 4.2 Item 5.1 - Tiffany Balork 4.3 Item 5.1 - Alysha Brillinger 4.4 Item 5.2 - Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning 5. 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. 5.1 Official Plan Amendment Application 75 m 3 OPA21/010/L/AP and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/015/UAP, 528- 550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street West, DSD -2023-193 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter) 5.2 Zoning By-law Amendment Application 45 m 323 ZBA22/011/N/AP, Draft Plan of Condominium Application 30CDM-22208, 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue and portion of the undeveloped Tagge Street right-of-way, 2415274 Ontario Inc., DSD - 2023 -198, DSD -2023-198 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter) 6. Adjournment Mariah Blake Committee Administrator Page 2 of 387 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: May 8, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim. Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD INVOLVED DATE OF REPORT: April 20, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-193 SUBJECT: 528-550 Lancaster Street West Official Plan Amendment Application OPA21/010/L/AP Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/015/L/AP Owner: 550 Lancaster Inc. & 528 Lancaster Street West Inc. AND 26 Bridge Street West Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/023/B/AP Owner: 550 Lancaster Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 528-550 Lancaster Street West 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA21/010/L/AP for 550 Lancaster Inc. & 528 Lancaster Street West Inc. be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -2023-193 as Attachments 'Al' `A2' and `A3', and, accordingly, forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for approval; and 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/015/L/AP for 550 Lancaster Inc. & 528 Lancaster Street West Inc. be approved in the form shown in the Proposed By-law and Map No. 1, attached to Report DSD -2023-193 as Attachments `131' and `B2'; and 3. That the Urban Design Brief prepared by MHBC Planning, dated May 2022 (Revised March 2023), attached as Attachment `C' to report DSD -2023-193 be endorsed, and that staff be directed to implement the Urban Design Brief through future Site Plan Approval processes, and at the discretion of the City's Director of Planning, significant changes to the Urban Design Brief will be to the satisfaction of Council; and further 26 Bridge Street West: 4. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/023/B/AP for 550 Lancaster Inc. be approved in the form shown in the Proposed By-law and Map No. 1, attached to Report DSD -2023-193 as Attachments `G1' and `G2'. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 3 of 387 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide planning recommendations regarding the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications requested by 550 Lancaster Inc. & 528 Lancaster Street West Inc. for the subject lands, addressed as 528-550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street. It is Planning staffs recommendation that the Official Plan Amendment be adopted and Zoning By-law Amendments be approved. The proposed amendments support the creation of a high-rise residential development with ground floor live/work units, within an Urban Corridor. As an Urban Corridor, this area is planned to be a focus for intensification. The two dwellings with heritage interest, addressed as 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West, would be relocated to 26 Bridge Street West and used for low density residential purposes. Community engagement included: o Circulation of a preliminary notice postcard to property owners and occupants within 240 metres of each of the subject lands; o Installation of notice signs on each of the lands; o Virtual neighbourhood meeting held on January 20, 2022 regarding 528-550 Lancaster Street West; o Postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners and occupants within 240 metres of the subject lands, those who responded to the preliminary circulation, and those who attended the neighbourhood meeting; o Notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on April 14, 2023. This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicants are requesting an amendment on two separate properties to facilitate high rise residential redevelopment of the lands addressed as 528-550 Lancaster Street West. The effect of the amendments would permit 528-550 Lancaster Street West to be redeveloped with a development concept consisting of 1,281 dwelling units plus 20 live/work units, within 5 multiple dwellings. Two dwellings with heritage interest, addressed as 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West, would be relocated to 26 Bridge Street West for use as single detached dwellings. An Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) are requested for the lands addressed as 528- 550 Lancaster Street West and a ZBA only is requested for the lands addressed as 26 Bridge Street West. In the case of both properties, holding provisions would be applied to prohibit development until certain conditions are met. Planning staff is recommending that the Official Plan Amendment be adopted, and the Zoning By-law Amendments be approved. BACKGROUND: 550 Lancaster Inc. and 528 Lancaster Street West Inc. (the Owners) have made application for Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) for the lands addressed as 528-550 Lancaster Street West ("subject lands on Lancaster"). Also, 550 Lancaster Inc. has made application for ZBA for the property addressed as 26 Bridge Street West ("subject property on Bridge"). The two subject areas are located within 420 metres of each other, as shown in Figure 1. These applications would allow 528-550 Lancaster Street West to be redeveloped for high density residential development and allow two buildings with heritage interest, addressed as 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West, to be relocated to 26 Bridge Street West for use as single detached dwellings, each with an additional dwelling unit (attached). Page 4 of 387 oBridge St W 3 Z O[If Fy U 9 GENERALDR LANG CRES �4 /Yo Y �R�°oFST" q©M�ga S� CID Cr W H &_528-550 Lancaster St W Figure 1 - 528-550 Lancaster Street West ("subject lands on Lancaster") is shown at bottom and 26 Bridge Street West ("subject property on Bridge") is shown at top. The majority of subject lands addressed as - Lancaster Street West (approximately 84% or 14,161 square metres) are designated Mixed Use in the 2014 Official Plan and are zoned MIX -2 with Site Specific Provision (49) in By-law 2019-051. A smaller portion of the lands (approximately 16% or 2,606 square metres) are designated Business Park Employment in the 2014 Official Plan and are zoned EMP -5 with Site Specific Provisions (78) and (79) in By-law 2019-051. Highlights of the existing Mixed Use / MIX -2 (49) permissions are as follows: Wide range of commercial and residential land uses are permitted; Minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0 and a maximum FSR of 4.0; and Maximum building height of 25 metres and 8 storeys. Highlights of the existing Business Park Employment / EMP -5 (78)(79) permissions are as follows: • Limited range of industrial employment uses permitted; • Minimum lot area of 2,000 square metres; • Minimum lot width of 25 metres; • No minimum or maximum FSR; and • No maximum building height. Page 5 of 387 A portion of the subject property addressed as 26 Bridge Street West is designated Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan and is identified as Community Areas within the City's Urban Structure. This portion is zoned RES -2 in By-law 2019-051. The other portion of the property is designated and Natural Heritage Conservation in the 2014 Official Plan and is identified as Green Areas within the Urban Structure. This portion is zoned EUF-1 in By-law 2019-051. It is only the portion zoned RES -2 that is subject to the requested ZBA. Highlights of the existing Low Rise Residential / RES -2 permissions are as follows: • A limited number of low rise residential uses are permitted, including: Single Detached Dwelling, Additional Dwelling Units (Attached), Additional Dwelling Units (Detached), Hospice, Small Residential Care Facility, and Home Occupation; • A maximum of one Single Detached Dwelling is permitted on a lot; • Minimum lot area of 411 square metres; and • Minimum lot width of 13.7 metres. Site Context 528-550 Lancaster Street West: The subject lands on Lancaster Street West have approximately 168 metres of frontage on the east side of Lancaster Street, between General Drive and Lang Crescent, within the Bridgeport West Planning Community. The lands are 1.68 hectares in area (4.14 acres) and located approximately 100 metres west of the Grand River. The lands contain a recently constructed 10 -storey multiple dwelling addressed as 528 Lancaster Street West (the subject applications apply to this building as well as to the balance of the lands). The property is irregular in shape and contains three dwellings, addressed as 544, 546, and 550 Lancaster Street West. The former two dwellings are not designated or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act but have been identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory as having potential cultural heritage value or interest. The buildings addressed as 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West are proposed to be relocated to 26 Bridge Street West, and the building addressed as 550 Lancaster Street West is proposed to be demolished. The buildings are currently occupied. The applicants advise that the existing tenants will be offered affordable units within the existing 528 Lancaster Street West building and that details are being worked out individually with tenants. The two properties immediately north of the subject lands on Lancaster are zoned MIX -2 and contain single detached dwellings. A tire shop is located to the northeast. The property to the east is located within the Lancaster Business Park and developed as a professional office. The property to the south is developed with a Tim Hortons restaurant. The properties on the opposite side of Lancaster Street are within the Lancaster Urban Corridor, are designated Mixed Use, and are developed with a mix of low rise residential uses and low rise commercial uses. Beyond the Lancaster Urban Corridor, approximately 70 metres west of the subject lands on Lancaster, is the low rise residential neighbourhood serviced by General Drive and Lang Crescent. The property at the northeast corner of Lancaster Street and Bridgeport Road, across from Tim Horton's, was recently developed for multiple residential use with affordable housing units (St. Paul's Lutheran Church site). Page 6 of 387 GENERAL DR GENERAL DR SUBJECT AREA LANG ORES LANG ORES z O� P Q � ¢4 gFLl�G� ��L Figure 2 - 528-550 Lancaster Street West ("subject lands on Lancaster") 26 Bridge Street West: The subject property on Bridge Street West is located approximately 420 metres north of the subject lands on Lancaster Street West, also within the Bridgeport West Planning Community. The property has approximately 20.2 metres of frontage on the north side of Bridge Street and is 0.12 hectares in area (0.3 acres). The property is rectangular in shape and undeveloped. The lands are sloped towards Laurel Creek (located approximately 30 metres to the east) and Grand River (located 140 metres to the east). The property to the west is developed with a two-storey multiple residential building. The property to the east is addressed as 20 Bridge Street and is developed with a two- storey red brick single detached dwelling that is identified on the Heritage Kitchener Advisory Committee Inventory as a property of interest, having been constructed in c.1890. Lands to the north are developed for low rise residential uses. Page 7 of 387 WATERLOOIN Cn r . +s �h q Co HILLCREST LAME X C) _J _JSUBJECTAREA G� csT �0 4s 4 'o<0i�F���i2 Figure 3 - 26 Bridge Street West ("subject property on Bridge") REPORT: 528-550 Lancaster Street West: The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands on Lancaster with a development concept consisting of five high-density residential buildings, containing 1,281 dwelling units plus 20 live/work units (i.e., units that can be converted from residential to commercial and vice versa). The applicant advises that the development would be a purpose-built rental project, consisting of one- and two- bedroom units: The proposed development includes a combination of structured (mostly above grade and partially underground) and surface parking which together would provide 917 parking spaces. Amenity Page 8 of 387 Status Number of Building Storeys Number of Storeys in Base (Podium) Number of Live / Work Units Number of Typical Dwelling Units Total Number of Units Building A (528 Lancaster St W) Existing 10 N/A N/A 127 127 Building B Proposed 12 6 18 218 236 Building C Proposed 34 8 N/A 411 411 Building D Proposed 26 8 N/A 302 302 Building E Proposed 18 8 2 223 225 Total N/A N/A N/A 20 1,281 1,301 The proposed development includes a combination of structured (mostly above grade and partially underground) and surface parking which together would provide 917 parking spaces. Amenity Page 8 of 387 spaces are located within each building and shared outdoor common amenity spaces are located above the 4th storey parking structure, between Buildings C and D (totaling 2,000 sq.m. in area), and on the rooftop of Building B (1,127 sq. m.). Additional common outdoor amenity areas are distributed throughout the site at ground level. Figure 4 — Proposed Development Concept for 528-550 Lancaster Street West Page 9 of 387 F I wift Figure 5 — Conceptual rendering showing a view to the proposed development from the intersection of Bridgeport Road and Lancaster Street West. The existing Tim Hortons restaurant is shown in the foreground. The existing building addressed as 528 Lancaster Street West (subject to the requested amendments) is located directly behind Tim Hortons. Figure 6 —Conceptual Rendering showing a view of the proposed development from the Bridge Street bridge over the Grand River. Page 10 of 387 Through the review of the applications, the site concept and proposal were revised to reduce the height of buildings directly abutting Lancaster Street and increase the height of buildings further from Lancaster Street, to create a better pedestrian streetscape while maintaining the same number of dwelling units. It should also be noted that the Floor Space Ratio of the proposal was increased during the review period from 5.8 to 7.5 as a result of not originally counting the massing of the parking structure within the calculation. All above floor area is included in the FSR calculation, including floor area for structured parking. To facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands on Lancaster with the proposed development concept, the applicant is requesting an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA). The purpose of the OPA is to: a. Amend Map No. 3 — Land Use by changing the land use designation of the portion of the subject lands designated Business Park Employment to Mixed Use, as shown on the attached Schedule A; b. Amend Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas to remove the lands identified on Schedule B from Specific Policy Area 9. Lancaster Business Park; c. Amend Map No. 5 — Specific Policy Areas to remove the lands identified on Schedule B from Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor; d. Amend Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas by adding Specific Policy Area 64. 528-550 Lancaster Street West for the lands identified on Schedule B. e. Part D, Section 15.D.12 is amended by adding Site Specific Policy Area policy 15.D.12.64 as follows: "15.D.12.64 528-550 Lancaster Street West Notwithstanding the Mixed Use land use designation and associated policies within Section 15.D.4, the following shall apply only to the lands addressed as 528-550 Lancaster Street West: The maximum building height shall be 34 storeys and 110 metres; The maximum floor space ratio shall be 7.5; iii. A Holding provision pursuant to Section 17.E.13 will apply to prohibit new development or land uses until such time as the following conditions have been met and this holding provision has been removed by by-law: 1. A Relocation and Conservation Plan have been submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Heritage Planner and Director of Planning; 2. A Transportation Impact Study has been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; 3. A Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report has been submitted and Page 11 of 387 approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; 4. A Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study has been completed and accepted and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the development on itself (e.g. HVAC system on the sensitive points of reception) and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses; and 5. A Record of Site Condition (RSC) in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, 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." iv. Notwithstanding the Mixed Use land use designation along Lancaster Street West, free-standing retail uses will be permitted to locate within new buildings, to a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres." The purpose of the ZBA is to change the zoning from Mixed Use Two Zone (MIX -2) with Site Specific Provision (49) and General Business Park Employment (EMP -5) with Site Specific Provisions (78) and (79) to MIX -2 with Site Specific Provision (366), as follows: a) The maximum building height shall be 110 metres, measured from the highest grade at the perimeter of the building; b) The maximum number of storeys shall be 34 storeys; c) The minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) shall be 1.0; d) The maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) shall be 7.5; e) The minimum street line stepback for mid -rise buildings and tall buildings constructed after the date of passing of this by-law shall be 1.5 metres; f) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 4.2 metres; g) The maximum number of storeys in the base of a mid -rise or tall building shall be 8 storeys; h) The minimum percent street line fagade openings shall be 43%; i) The minimum parking rate for dwelling units shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit, to a maximum of 1,300 dwelling units; j) The minimum visitor parking rate for dwelling units shall be 0.1 spaces per unit, to a maximum of 1,300 dwelling units; k) The minimum parking rate for live / work units shall be 1 space per 67 square metres of gross floor area which accommodates such use. In addition, Holding Provision (46H) is proposed to be applied to ensure the following plans materials / studies are submitted to the appropriate authority, prior to development occurring: • A Relocation and Conservation Plan regarding 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning; • A Transportation Impact Study, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo; • A Functional Servicing Report and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo; • A Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study, to the satisfaction of the Region; and Page 12 of 387 A Record of Site Condition and associated Ministry Acknowledgement letter, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. 26 Bridge Street West: To facilitate the above noted redevelopment at the subject lands on Lancaster, the two buildings on the City's Inventory of Historic Buildings, addressed as 544 and 546 Bridge Street West, are proposed to be relocated to 26 Bridge Street West, 420 metres to the north of their current location. The third dwelling, addressed as 550 Lancaster Street West, is not of heritage interest and is proposed to be demolished. The two buildings would be used as single detached dwellings, each with an additional dwelling unit (attached), also known as a duplex, for a total of four dwelling units on the property. Figure 7 — Proposed Development Concept for 26 Bridge Street West Page 13 of 387 0 Figure 8 — Northwest perspective view showing a rendering of the proposed dwellings (on the left) from Bridge Street. An existing dwelling (20 Bridge Street) is shown for context (on the right). Figure 9 — Northeast perspective view showing a rendering of the proposed dwellings (on the left) from Bridge Street. An existing dwelling (20 Bridge Street) is shown for context (on the right). Page 14 of 387 s t r t , Figure 9 — Northeast perspective view showing a rendering of the proposed dwellings (on the left) from Bridge Street. An existing dwelling (20 Bridge Street) is shown for context (on the right). Page 14 of 387 1 Figure 9 — Northeast perspective view showing a rendering of the proposed dwellings (on the left) from Bridge Street. An existing dwelling (20 Bridge Street) is shown for context (on the right). Page 14 of 387 Due to the narrow lot width, and the heritage requirement to protect the side-by-side building arrangement, the dwellings are proposed to be positioned perpendicular to Bridge Street. In this way, both buildings would be visible as one travels west from the roundabout at Bridge/Lancaster towards Woolwich Street. The heritage buildings would be more visible from the public realm than presently, since currently large trees partially obscure their view from Lancaster Street and are set back 50 metres from Lancaster Street. The dwellings are proposed to be placed less than half this distance from Bridge Street (23 metres). To facilitate the placement of these buildings on the lot, the owner is requesting a ZBA to Zoning By- law 2019-051 to add Site Specific Provision (367) to the current RES -2 Zone. The main purpose of this ZBA is to permit two single detached dwellings on one lot, since currently only one single detached dwelling is permitted on a lot. This provision would only apply to the two buildings to be relocated from 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West, not to new buildings. The provision would also permit each dwelling to contain one additional dwelling unit (attached). Additionally, the provision would not require the typical visual barrier between the parking lot and the abutting property addressed as 20 Bridge Street West, to ensure the view to the heritage buildings is maintained and due to a grade change between the properties. Moreover, Holding Provision (47H) is proposed to ensure the following plans / materials / reports are submitted to the appropriate authority, prior to placement of the dwellings: • An Urban Design Brief, including a Landscaping Plan and Planting Plan, related to the design and screening of retaining walls, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning; and • Detailed Grading / Stormwater Management Plan and Servicing Plan, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Planning Analysis: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13: Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the council of a municipality, in carrying out its responsibilities under the Planning Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest. For example: • The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; • The minimization of waste; • The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; • The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; • The adequate provision of employment opportunities; • The appropriate location of growth and development; • The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; • The promotion of built form that, o Is well-designed, o Encourages a sense of place, and o Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; • 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 and Growth Plan which direct how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is an important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement and Page 15 of 387 Growth Plan. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendments adequately address the matters of provincial interest outlined above. 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 land use designation and zoning for the subject lands on Lancaster facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the subject lands. Also, the lands are within proximity to transit, including two local bus routes (Route #5 and Route #6). Additionally, the lands are within proximity to the Walter Bean Trail, several local parks (e.g., Lancaster Business Park Greenway, Lancaster Park, Bridgeport Trail Natural Area, Joe Thompson Park, Bridgeport Sportsfield, Breithaupt Park), and Bridgeport Community Centre (approx. 800 metres). The proposed development would make efficient use of existing services and adjacent Regional roads, including Lancaster Street, Bridge Street, and Bridgeport Road. Provincial policies support the provision of a broad range of housing, noting that the applicant advises the development would be a purpose-built rental project, consisting of one- and two- bedroom units. Presently, along the section of Lancaster Street directly abutting the subject lands on Lancaster, a sidewalk is located only on the west (opposite) side of Lancaster Street, though sidewalks on both sides of Lancaster Street are present immediately south of 528 Lancaster St W (to the south) and recommencing two properties north of the subject lands on Lancaster. However, Regional staff advise that as part of the Lancaster Street Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment Study, the installation of a sidewalk on the east (same) side of Lancaster Street to service the existing building at 528 Lancaster was added. Due to the subject proposal, the Region has advised it will also install a sidewalk service to the balance of the subject lands. The sidewalk is expected to be installed in 2025. Also, the Region is currently doing a study to determine the need for and configuration of cycling facilities on Bridgeport Road from Erb Street to Lancaster Street. This study will include the Bridgeport/Lancaster intersection and consider the proposed roadworks and active transportation facilities on Lancaster Street, south of the Bridgeport intersection. Any proposed works on Lancaster Street north of Bridgeport Rd will be the subject of a future study. The ZBA for the subject property on Bridge facilitate low rise residential development of a property that has been vacant for an indefinite period (at least 27 years). The applicant has acquired this property and is willing to undertake significant grading changes, including constructing several retaining walls, to render the property developable under the current base zone. Moreover, the ZBA will conserve two buildings with heritage interest, in accordance with section 2.6.1 of the PPS which states, "2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." Page 16 of 387 Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendments will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands on Lancaster with high-density development that is compatible with the surrounding area, will contribute towards achieving 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 has 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 the requested amendments conform to 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. 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 applying the policies of the Growth 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; • improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; • 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; • expand convenient access to: o a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; o public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; o an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and o healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; • provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; • mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. In addition, the Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and higher density housing options that accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that provide access to transit and other amenities. The subject lands on Lancaster and the subject property on Bridge are within proximity to transit, the provincial highway system, parks, trails, and a community centre. In addition, the proposed building height and massing, along with live/work units proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster, render the proposal high-density, mixed-use development. These aspects of the proposal will assist in achieving a complete and compact community. Page 17 of 387 As noted above, the subject lands on Lancaster are currently split designated Mixed Use and Business Park Employment, according to the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The lands designated Business Park Employment are considered protected employment. In accordance with policy 2.2.5.9 of the Growth Plan, the conversion of lands within employment areas to non -employment uses may be permitted only through a Municipal Comprehensive Review Process (MCR Process). Through the Region's ongoing MCR process, Regional Council endorsed the proposed Regional Employment Area (REA) in April of 2021 which excluded the portion of the subject lands that are designated Business Park Employment from the Region's Protected Employment Area. Regional Employment Areas and corresponding policies were adopted by Regional Council in August 2022 through Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 6) which was approved by the Province in April 2023. Accordingly, Region staff has advised that it has no objection to the redesignation of these lands to non -employment uses. Policy 4.2.7.1 of the Growth Plan states that, "Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas. In this regard, the amendments conform to this policy because they will ensure the conservation of the two buildings with heritage interest. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendments 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 since this area provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed 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 requested amendments would facilitate development that is well supported by hard and soft infrastructure and services. The proposed developments would provide rental housing at a high- density along with commercial use via live/work units. Regional staff has indicated it has no objections to the proposed applications for the subject lands on Lancaster, on the condition that holding provisions are applied to require a transportation impact study, functional servicing and detailed grading plan stormwater management report, detailed transportation and stationary noise study, and a Record of Site Condition. Furthermore, Regional staff has stated that it has no objections to the ZBA for the subject property on Bridge, subject to a holding provision that a Detailed Grading / Stormwater Management Plan and Servicing Plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the Region, prior to the placement of the buildings on the property. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendments conform to the Regional Official Plan Page 18 of 387 Requested Official Plan Amendment to City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014: Land Use Designation The City of Kitchener Official Plan (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 on Lancaster are currently split designated Mixed Use and Business Park Employment on Map 3 — Land Use of the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Mixed Use land use designation is intended to achieve an appropriate mix of commercial, residential and institutional uses. This designation is also intended to support and provide opportunities for lands to evolve and intensify over time and to allow for a broad range of uses. The Mixed Use designation allows for new appropriately scaled commercial uses that primarily serve the surrounding areas and seeks. Lands designated Mixed Use are to be transit -supportive, pedestrian -oriented, human -scaled and integrated and interconnected with other areas of the city. Redevelopment within these lands is to achieve a high standard of urban design and to be compatible with surrounding low rise neighbourhoods. In addition, the Mixed Use designation contains several policies that speak to building height and massing. For example: 15.D.4.17. The Floor Space Ratio requirements for all new residential or mixed use building development or redevelopment within lands designated Mixed Use will be as follows:... b) A minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 on lands within a City Node, Community Node, or Urban Corridor on Map 2....Further to the above, the implementing zoning will consider and may contain transition regulations to facilitate and permit lands to ultimately meet the minimum Floor Space Ratio requirements as noted above. 15.D.4.19. Notwithstanding Policy 15.D.4.17 b), a minimum Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of up to 4.0 will apply to individual properties where higher density development or redevelopment is desirable and appropriate. The following criteria will be considered as the basis for the implementing zoning: a) the property abuts or has direct access to an arterial or collector road; b) the property is adequately buffered from lands designated Low Rise Residential; and, c) there is adequate existing or planned infrastructure. 15.D.4.20. Notwithstanding Policies 15.D.4.17 c) and 15.D.2.19, the City may, provided that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied, consider a maximum Floor Space Ratio up to 5.0 if the development or redevelopment: a) is designed to LEED certification standard or equivalent building rating system;, b) incorporates a below -grade parking structure, public amenity area, cultural heritage resource and/or public art; and/or, c) contains a food store located internal to a mixed use development. 15.D.4.22. Generally no building will exceed:... b) 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is greater at the highest grade elevation, on lands designated Mixed Use as a Urban Corridor on Map 2. 15.D.4.23. Notwithstanding Policy 15.D.4.22, the City may consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units. It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the Page 19 of 387 streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied. In response to these policies, Planning staff advises that the subject lands on Lancaster have direct access to a Regional ("arterial") road. The lands are adequately buffered from the nearest Low Rise Residential area (approximately 70 metres) by lands on the opposite side of Lancaster Street which are designated and zoned for medium density mixed use development and would permit buildings up to 25 metres in height. The City's Engineering Services and Kitchener Utilities advise that they have no concerns with the proposal with respect to servicing or otherwise. The Region has requested a holding provision to require a Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report prior to development proceeding. The holding provision will prevent development until all engineering matters are adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the Region. The development includes structured parking that is partially below grade and screened from public view. Also, the development will preserve two heritage resources (buildings) by relocating them to 26 Bridge Street and ensuring they are continued to be used for residential purposes. Moreover, the redevelopment provides 20 live/work units that will provide opportunities for non- residential (e.g., commercial) use on the ground floor of Buildings B and E. The combination of live/work units and dwelling units result in a mixed-use development. Each proposed building will have a pedestrian -scale base between 6 and 8 storeys in height, and appropriate massing along the Lancaster Corridor. Policy 17.E.13.1. of the City of Kitchener Official Plan requires that holding provisions 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. Holding provisions may be used to implement this Plan to ensure that certain conditions, studies or requirements related to a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment are met. In this case, City Heritage staff has requested a holding provision to require a Relocation and Conservation Plan to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. Additionally, the Region has requested application of four holding provisions to ensure the submission and approval of a 1) Transportation Impact Study, 2) Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report, 3) a Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study, and 4) a Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement letter. It should be noted that the Region and City have already been provided with the first three studies/plans noted above, but the holding provision will ensure a final / satisfactory version is provided, based on the approved development. This approach will ensure that all applicable matters will be addressed before development can proceed. The portion of the subject lands on Lancaster designated Mixed Use is also subject to Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor, as shown on Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas, and associated policy 15.D.12.15., which allows free-standing retail uses to be permitted to locate within new buildings, to a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres. Presently, this policy is not applicable to the subject proposal, but will be carried forward via a new Specific Policy Area. The Business Park Employment land use designation applies to lands which are planned as a unit and regarded as a prestigious location for certain industrial uses due to their access to major transportation corridors, high visibility, and distinct identity. The portion of the lands designated Business Park Employment is also subject to Specific Policy Area 9. Lancaster Business Park, as shown on Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas, and associated policy 15.D.12.9., which allows free - Page 20 of 387 standing office and prohibits certain industrial, commercial, manufacturing and storage uses. This policy is not applicable to the subject proposal. The applicant is requesting to amend Map 3 — Land Use by changing the designation of the portion of the lands designated Business Park Employment to Mixed Use. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to amend Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas for the subject lands by removing the portion of the subject lands identified as Specific Policy Area 9. Lancaster Business Park and removing the portion of the subject lands identified as Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor and adding new Specific Policy Area 64. 528-550 Lancaster Street West to the whole of the lands. Lastly, to facilitate the proposed development concept consisting of 1,281 dwelling units plus 20 live/work units, within 5 buildings, Site Specific Policy Area policy 15.D.12.64 would be added, to add the following provisions: • The maximum building height shall be 34 storeys and 110 metres; • The maximum floor space ratio shall be 7.5; • A Holding provision pursuant to Section 17.E.13 will apply to prohibit new development or land uses until such time as the following conditions have been met and this holding provision has been removed by by-law: o A Relocation and Conservation Plan have been submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning; o A Transportation Impact Study has been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; o A Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; o A Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study has been completed and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the development on itself (e.g. HVAC system on the sensitive points of reception) and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses; and o A Record of Site Condition (RSC) in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, 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. City staff is satisfied that the amendments to bring the lands designated Business Park Employment with Site Specific Policy 9 into the Mixed Use designation with Specific Policy Area 64 are justified. A Municipal Comprehensive Review has occurred as part of ROPA No. 6, and this small portion of land is not essential to the functioning of the Lancaster Business Park employment area. The lands are better served being incorporated into the Lancaster Urban Corridor, given the lot fabric that has changed because of private and public land purchases by the developer. Planning staff is of the opinion that application of the Mixed Use designation to the whole of the subject lands on Lancaster, along with the requested Specific Policy Area and holding provisions, is supportable in this context. The subject property on Bridge, is designated Low Rise Residential. There are several applicable policies, for example: • 15.D.3.8. The Low Rise Residential land use designation will accommodate a full range of low density housing types which may include single detached dwellings, additional dwelling units, attached and detached, semi-detached dwellings, street townhouse dwellings, Page 21 of 387 townhouse dwellings in a cluster development, low-rise multiple dwellings, special needs housing, and other forms of low-rise housing. • 15.D.3.9. The City will encourage and support the mixing and integrating of innovative and different forms of housing to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form. 15.D.3.11. A maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 will apply to all development and redevelopment. Site-specific increases to allow up to a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.75 may be considered where it can be demonstrated that the increase in the Floor Space Ratio is compatible and meets the general intent of the policies in this Plan. An Official Plan Amendment will be required to consider an increase in the Floor Space Ratio greater than 0.75. • 15.D.3.12. No building will exceed 3 storeys or 11 metres in height, at the highest grade elevation. Relief from the building height may be considered for properties with unusual grade conditions and for buildings and/or structures with increased floor to ceiling heights and architectural features provided the increased building height is compatible with the built form and physical character of the neighbourhood. In this regard, Planning staff advises that the requested ZBA conforms to the Low Rise Residential policies. The ZBA would facilitate placement of two single detached dwellings each with an additional dwelling unit (attached), both of which are permitted uses. The concept of providing two dwellings on one larger lot represents an innovative new housing scenario. The placement of two 2 -storey dwellings on the property aligns with the Floor Space Ratio and building height policies. Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area in key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), Major Transit Station Areas, City Nodes, Community Nodes, and Urban Corridors, per Policy 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan, and as shown in Figure 1, below. The portion of the subject lands on Lancaster that are designated Mixed Use are located within an Urban Corridor in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan, while the portion that is designated Business Park Employment is identified as Industrial Employment Areas. It should be noted that no change to the Urban Structure mapping is requested for the portion designated Business Park Employment. This is because the boundaries of Urban Structure components are interpretive. Accordingly, should the OPA be adopted to change the land use designation and specific policy area for those lands designated Business Park Employment, no change to the Urban Structure map will be required and the whole of the subject land will be interpreted as Urban Corridor. Urban Corridors are identified as a Primary Intensification Area in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure. Urban Corridors are generally linear in form and are located along existing or planned transit corridors. They are intended to have strong pedestrian linkages and be integrated with neighbouring residential and employment uses. The subject lands on Lancaster have direct access to a Regional road and are close to two other Regional roads (Bridgeport Road and Bridge Street). The lands are located on two local GRT transit routes. According to policy 3.C.2.38 of the Official Plan, the planned function of Urban Corridors is to provide for a range of retail and commercial uses and intensification opportunities that should be transit - Page 22 of 387 supportive. Urban Corridors function as the spine of a community as well as a destination for surrounding neighbourhoods. Strengthening linkages and establishing compatible interfaces between the Urban Corridors and surrounding Community Areas and Industrial Employment areas are priorities for development in these areas. The proposed development is planned for mixed use, providing 20 live/work units and 1,281 purpose-built rental dwelling units. - ' �,:tructuraCafnp*MMW-7' Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) Major Transit Station Area City Node Community Node Urban Corridor Neighbourhood Node Arterial Corridor Predominant Land Use Designation Ci Centre DlstriM Civic District Market District Innovation District Mixed Use TBD by Station Area Plan Exercise Commercial Campus Commercial Mixed Use Institutional Medium Rise Residential High Rise Residential Commercial Mixed Use Institutional Medium Rise Residential Hiah Rise Residential Commercial Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use Commercial COMMUNITY AREAS INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT AREAS GREEN AREAS Low Rise Residential Medium Rise Residential High Rise Residential Institutional Major Infrastructure & Utilities Heavy Industrial Employment General Industrial Em to menl M.I.—Park Em Io men Natural Heritage onservation Open Space Figure 10. Diagram from the City of Kitchener Official Plan illustrating the City's Urban Structure and Predominant Land Uses. The current and proposed Land Use Designations and current Urban Structure Component are circled in red, for context. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit while ensuring development directly fronting Lancaster Street is pedestrian- and transit- friendly. Buildings with the greatest height and massing are located further from Lancaster Street and the Low Rise Residential neighbourhood located west of the Lancaster Urban Corridor. In this way, the proposal is context sensitive to surrounding lands. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that complies with the City's Urban Corridor policies and contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally -friendly city. The subject property on Bridge, is part of the Community Areas Urban Structure Element. There are several applicable policies, for example: 3.C.2.50. The planned function of Community Areas is to provide for residential uses as well as non-residential supporting uses intended to serve the immediate residential areas. Page 23 of 387 • 3.C.2.52. Limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in accordance with the applicable land use designation on Map 3 and the Urban Design Policies in Section 11. The proposed development must be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context. In this regard, Planning staff advises that the requested ZBA conforms to the Community Areas policies. The ZBA would facilitate placement of residential uses that are sensitive to and compatible with the character of the surrounding lands, the dwellings being low rise in form and providing setbacks in compliance with the current zoning. Urban Design The City's Urban Design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. In the opinion of staff, the development proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster 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 was submitted and has been reviewed by City staff. The Urban Design Brief outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed zoning by-law regulations. Streetscape — The Lancaster Street frontage is activated by 11 ground floor live/work units within Buildings B and E (9 other live/work ground floor live/work units face the interior of the site and are accessible from a common corridor). Furthermore, the building entrances for the two proposed buildings abutting Lancaster Street (Buildings B and E) have principal entrances facing Lancaster Street with access to public sidewalks. While the existing 10 storey building (Building A) does not have a base (podium), all proposed buildings have clearly defined bases that will enhance the streetscape. Safety — As part of the site plan approval process, staff will ensure Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site meets the Ontario Building Code and the City's Emergency Services Policy. Universal Design —The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code. Skyline — The proposed towers will provide a new feature on the City's skyline within the Bridgeport area. The proposed buildings through their varied height will create visual interest from several different vantage points, including from the opposite side of the Grand River. Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale — The subject site is designed to have buildings that are developed at a scale that is compatible with the existing and planned built form for the surrounding area. The towers closest to Lancaster Street are shorter in height, while the towers farthest from Lancaster Street are taller. All proposed towers have well defined bases of varying heights — which creates interest — as well as building stepbacks which will enhance the public realm. For example, the base of Building B is 6 storeys, while the base of Building E is 8 storeys. Planning staff recommends endorsement of the Urban Design Brief for the subject lands on Lancaster Street. Regarding the subject property on Bridge, Planning staff is recommending a holding provision to prevent placement of the two dwellings until an Urban Design Brief, including a Landscaping Plan and Planting Plan, related to the design and screening of retaining walls, has been submitted by the Page 24 of 387 owner and approved by the Director of Planning of the City of Kitchener. This will ensure that the retaining walls that will be visible from the public realm, especially as one travels west from the roundabout at Lancaster/Bridge, do not create unacceptable adverse visual impacts and preserve the heritage attributes and character of the buildings to be placed on the property. Shadow Impact Study As part of the Urban Design Brief, the owner completed a Shadow Impact Study for the subject lands on Lancaster. Urban Design staff have reviewed the study (and updated study based on the revised design) 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. It should be noted that there is very minimal shadow cast on the low rise residential neighbourhood to the west of the Lancaster Urban Corridor because the proposed development arranged such that the tallest buildings are located furthest from Lancaster Street and due to the orientation of the buildings relative to the sun's path. While the single detached dwelling immediately to the north of the subject lands would be impacted as a result of the proposed development, the dwelling is located within the Lancaster Urban Corridor, possesses the same MIX -2 (49) zoning as the subject lands currently possesses (which permits a development with a building height of 25 metres / 8 storeys), and is considered legal non -conforming since single detached dwellings are not a permitted use. These lands are planned to redevelop over time with a more dense use. Wind Study The owner completed a pedestrian level wind preliminary impact assessment for the subject lands on Lancaster. This assessment was reviewed by Urban Design staff. The assessment concludes the development is not expected to have significant wind influence on neighbouring properties. Wind control features will be required through the future site plan application and a full Wind Assessment will be required and reviewed at this future stage. Any mitigation measures to address pedestrian level wind impacts will be implemented through the site and building design through the site plan approval process. Tall Building Guidelines The development proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster have also been reviewed for compliance with the City's Design for Tall Buildings Guidelines (part of the City's Urban Design Manual). 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. Urban Design staff has reviewed the Urban Design Brief, dated May 2022 (Revised March 2023), submitted in support of the development applications. The Urban Design Brief generally achieves most of the standards set out in the Urban Design Manual, including the Tall Building Guidelines. Page 25 of 387 The Urban Design Brief provides preliminary shadow and wind studies, both of which will be finalized through the future site plan approval process (full wind tunnel study and full shadow analysis based on final building massing). Any required changes identified will be implemented through the site plan process. Based on the above, Planning staff recommends that the Urban Design Brief be endorsed. 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 a combination of land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a wide range of transportation choices viable. As aforementioned, the subject lands on Lancaster are located within the Lancaster Urban Corridor and within proximity to Highway 85 and two local bus routes. The subject proposal will support current and future transit service and build transit ridership. Additionally, 640 secured bicycle parking stalls will be implemented, as required by Zoning By-law 2019-051. Housina Policies Section 4.1.1 of the City's Official Plan states that it is a City 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. In addition, 4.C.1.12. states that "The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods." The development proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster will increase the range of dwelling units available in the city, and within the Bridgeport area. The site development concept includes a mix of 1-, and 2- bedroom rental dwelling units. The range of unit types in this location will appeal to a variety of household needs. The mixed-use nature of the proposed redevelopment as well as the building form will assist in achieving complete community. Moreover, the placement of buildings on the subject property on Bridge will ensure that two buildings with heritage significance are preserved for their heritage attributes and for the ability to continue to provide a valuable housing in a low rise building form. Sustainable Development Section 7.C.4.1 of the City's Official Plan ensures developments will increasingly be sustainable by encouraging, supporting and, where appropriate, requiring: a) compact development and efficient built form; b) environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and construction practices; c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; d) the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and, e) transit -supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active modes of transportation such as cycling and walking. The applicant submitted a Sustainability Statement in support of the development proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster. Environmental Planning staff reviewed this statement and supports the proposals since several sustainable measures have been proposed or are being considered for the development. As part of a future site plan application, a Sustainability Statement will be required which will further explore and/or confirm additional sustainability measures that are best suited to the development. Page 26 of 387 Specific Policv Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor The subject lands on Lancaster are proposed to be removed from Specific Policy Area 15 as a new Special Policy Area 64 is proposed. The policy from Special Policy Area 15 is being carried forward to implement a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres for free-standing retail uses, to align with the balance of the Lancaster Street Urban Corridor. Official Plan Amendment Conclusions Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor The subject lands are proposed to be removed from Specific Policy Area 15 as a new Special Policy Area 64 is proposed. The policy from Special Policy Area 15 is being carried forward to implement a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres for free-standing retail uses, to align with the balance of the Lancaster Street Urban Corridor. Official Plan Amendment Conclusions Based on the above noted policy analysis, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested Official Plan Amendment represents good planning and recommends that the requested Official Plan Amendment be adopted. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law 2019-051: 528-550 Lancaster Street West The majority of subject lands on Lancaster are designated Mixed Use in the 2014 Official Plan and are zoned MIX -2 with Site Specific Provision (49) in By-law 2019-051. This existing zoning permits a wide range of commercial and residential land uses, a minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0 and a maximum FSR of 4.0, and a maximum building height of 25 metres / 8 storeys. This zoning also requires a minimum of 0.9 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 0.1 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit. A smaller portion of the lands are designated Business Park Employment in the 2014 Official Plan and are zoned EMP -5 with Site Specific Provisions (78) and (79) in By-law 2019-051. This zoning permits a limited range of industrial employment uses, a minimum lot area of 2,000 square metres, and no minimum lot width of 25 metres. It should also be noted that this zoning does not have a minimum or maximum FSR requirement or a maximum building height requirement. The applicant has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law 2019-051 to change the zoning from Mixed Use Two Zone (MIX -2) with Site Specific Provision (49) and General Business Park Employment Zone (EMP -5) with Site Specific Provision (78) and Site Specific Provision (79) to Mixed Use Two Zone (MIX -2) with Site Specific Provision (366) and Holding Provision (46H). Site Specific Provision (366) Requested Site Specific Provision (366) includes the following regulations a) The maximum building height shall be 110 metres, measured from the highest grade at the perimeter of the building; b) The maximum number of storeys within 40 metres of the street line of Lancaster Street shall be 18 storeys, measured from highest finished grade. Page 27 of 387 c) The maximum number of storeys shall be 34 storeys; d) The minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) shall be 1.0; e) The maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) shall be 7.5; f) The minimum street line stepback for mid -rise buildings and tall buildings constructed after the date of passing of this by-law shall be 1.5 metres; g) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 4.2 metres; h) The maximum number of storeys in the base of a mid -rise or tall building shall be 8 storeys; i) The minimum percent street line fagade openings shall be 43%; j) The minimum parking rate for dwelling units shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit, to a maximum of 1,300 dwelling units; k) The minimum visitor parking rate for dwelling units shall be 0.1 spaces per unit, to a maximum of 1,300 dwelling units; 1) The minimum parking rate for live / work units shall be 1 space per 67 square metres of gross floor area which accommodates such use. Policy 4.C.1.8 of the Official Plan indicates that where special zoning regulations are requested for residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the site specific zoning regulations will consider compatibility with existing built form; appropriate massing and setbacks that support and maintain streetscape and community character; appropriate buffering to mitigate adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy; avoidance of unacceptable adverse impacts by providing appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area. Planning staff offers the following comments with respect to the requested Site Specific Provision. The maximum building height and maximum number of storeys regulations would ensure that no building is constructed that is higher than 110 metres or 34 storeys. The current zoning permits building heights up to 25 metres or 8 storeys, though the Official Plan allows greater heights, based on certain criteria that have been achieved in this case (see Official Plan Amendment section). Should Council decide to endorse the Urban Design Brief, this document will provide further direction regarding where on the site buildings of specific heights may be located. The minimum and maximum FSR regulations would ensure that the total massing/bulk of the site is limited to 7.5 FSR. The current zoning permits a minimum FSR of 1.0 (proposal does not request to change this figure) maximum FSR of 4.0. The requested figure includes above grade parking structures. Should Council decide to endorse the Urban Design Brief, this document will provide further direction regarding where on the site buildings of specific dimensions/massing may be located. The minimum street line stepbacks, minimum number of storeys in the base of a mid -rise or tall building, minimum street line fagade openings regulations will assist in ensuring the development is human -scaled and that a pleasing streetscape is created on Lancaster Street. The Urban Design Brief assists in informing the these site-specific provisions for the context. The minimum rear yard setback regulation will reduce the requirement from the current zoning from 7.5 metres to 4.2 metres. Planning staff is satisfied that 4.2 metres is an adequate setback considering the primarily affected abutting property is a professional office within the Lancaster Business Park and not a sensitive land use. A Parking Study was submitted by the applicant in support of the requested parking reduction. The City's Transportation Services has reviewed several updated parking scenarios and is supportive of the requested parking reduction for dwelling units from 0.9 spaces per unit to 0.6. It should be mentioned that the visitor parking rate is unchanged from the requirement within the current zoning, but is inserted into the Site Specific Provision (366) for clarity. A special parking rate of 1 space per Page 28 of 387 unit for live/work units is proposed for this new, innovative use and is supported by Transportation Services. Holding Provision (46H) Planning staff offers the following comments with respect to Holding Provision (46H). 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 to facilitate the implementation of the MIX - 2 Zone and Site Specific Provision (366). The City will enact a by-law to remove the holding symbol when all conditions set out in the holding provision have been satisfied, permitting development in accordance with the assigned zoning category. Planning staff recommends the following holding provision as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment, to prohibit new development and land uses until such time as the following conditions have been met and the holding provision has been removed by by-law: a) A Relocation and Conservation Plan have been submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Heritage Planner and Director of Planning; b) A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) has been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; c) A Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report has been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; d) A Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study has been completed and accepted and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the development on itself (e.g. HVAC system on the sensitive points of reception) and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. e) A Record of Site Condition (RSC) in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, 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. Heritage Planning staff has requested a holding provision to require a Relocation and Conservation Plan to ensure the two dwellings are safely and efficiently moved to the new location at 26 Bridge Street. Official Plan Policy 17.E.13.1.e allows the City to place holding provisions for zoning until conditions related to cultural heritage conservation are satisfied. Further heritage requirements will be implemented at the site plan stage. The Region has requested a holding provision for a final TIS. This study will review road cross- sections and determine whether the dual left turn lane proposed by the developer can be accommodated considering the grading along this section of Lancaster Street and the subject lands. The TIS must be approved by the Region before development can be permitted. The Region has requested a holding provision for a Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report. The plans submitted as part of the requested amendments do not identify the lands that are to be dedicated to the Region and must be updated to show the existing and future property lines as well as the entirety of the Lancaster Street West frontage. In addition, a Servicing Plan must be provided to identify the required storm, sanitary and water connections to all the proposed buildings including the existing building at 528 Lancaster Street West. Page 29 of 387 A Noise Feasibility Study was prepared in support of the requested amendments and reviewed by the Region of Waterloo. A Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study is required to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Region once detailed plans are available at the site plan stage before development can proceed. The Region has advised there are high environmental threats on an adjacent parcel of land according to the Region's Threats Inventory Database. Due to the proposed density increase of a sensitive land use on the subject lands a Record of Site Condition and Ministry's Acknowledgement letter is required before development can be permitted. 26 Bridge Street West A portion of the subject property on Bridge is designated Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan and is identified as Community Areas within the City's Urban Structure. This portion is zoned RES -2 in By-law 2019-051. The other portion of the property is designated and Natural Heritage Conservation in the 2014 Official Plan and is identified as Green Areas within the Urban Structure. This portion is zoned EUF-1 in By-law 2019-051. It is only the portion zoned RES -2 that is subject to the requested ZBA. The existing zoning RES -2 zoning permits a limited number of low rise residential uses, including Single Detached Dwelling, Additional Dwelling Units (Attached), Additional Dwelling Units (Detached), Hospice, Small Residential Care Facility, and Home Occupation. The zoning requires a minimum lot area of 411 square metres and minimum lot width of 13.7 metres. In addition, a General Regulation in Section 4 of By-law 2019-051 applies to all Low Rise Residential zones to permit only one single detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling on a lot [Section 4.12a)]. This regulation does not prohibit the establishment of an additional dwelling unit in association with a single detached dwelling. The applicant has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law 2019-051 to change the zoning from Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) to Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) with Site Specific Provision (367) and Holding Provision (47H). Site Specific Provision (367) Requested Site Specific Provision (367) includes the following regulations a) A maximum of two single detached dwellings shall be permitted on a lot. This regulation shall only apply to buildings moved from 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West. b) Each dwelling may be permitted to contain one Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached). c) A visual barrier shall not be required between a parking lot with 5 parking spaces or less and an abutting residential lot. Planning staff offers the following comments with respect to the requested Site Specific Provision. The regulation allowing a maximum of two single detached dwellings on a lot is the main regulation requested. This would allow the two buildings with heritage interest to be relocated from the subject lands on Lancaster to the subject property on Bridge. The regulation is situation specific in that it cannot be used to justify two new dwellings on the property. Given the large lot area (1,166 square metres) and lot width (20.2 metres) of the property, the placement of two dwellings along with additional dwelling units (attached) is not a concern. Adequate facilities to support the uses (e.g., landscaped area, amenity space, driveway, parking area) can easily be provided. Page 30 of 387 In addition, privacy to abutting properties is not a concern since the dwellings would back onto the parking lot of the multiple dwelling to the west while maintaining a 10 -metre setback to the side lot line abutting the property to the east. The proposed dwellings and subject property meet all lot area, lot width, lot coverage, building height, maximum number of storeys, and setback regulations of the RES -2 Zone. The dwellings are also proposed to be placed in a manner that respects the wide variety in setbacks of abutting properties: 30 Bridge Street West has a front yard setback of 4.5 metres and 20 Bridge Street West has a front yard setback of 39 metres. The front yard setback of the proposed dwellings is 23 metres, which would create an appropriate transition between the two abutting buildings. Within the surrounding neighbourhood, there is variety in massing, and built form of existing buildings. While the placement of two dwellings at a 90 -degree angle to Bridge Street is not ideal (the side of one dwelling would face the street), Planning staff can support the arrangement due to the undefined character of the area and the above noted factors. Lastly, the Site Specific Provision would not require the typical visual barrier between the parking area and the abutting property to the east, to ensure the view to the heritage buildings is maintained and due to a grade change between the properties. The visual barrier would otherwise be placed on top of the significant retaining wall facing east. Holding Provision (47H) To ensure that the retaining wall does not create unacceptable adverse visual impacts, Planning staff is recommending a holding provision to prevent placement of the two dwellings until an Urban Design Brief, including a Landscaping Plan and Planting Plan, related to the design and screening of retaining walls, has been submitted by the owner and approved by the Director of Planning of the City of Kitchener. This is also important to ensure the heritage attributes of the buildings to be placed on the property are not compromised. In addition, Regional staff has stated that it has no objections to the ZBA, subject to a holding provision that a Detailed Grading / Stormwater Management Plan and Servicing Plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the Region, prior to the placement of the buildings on the property. This will ensure that engineering matters are fully addressed from a Regional perspective, considering the property has frontage on a Regional road. Conclusions regarding Zoning By-law Amendments Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested ZBA to change the zoning of the subject lands from Mixed Use Two Zone (MIX -2) with Site Specific Provision (49) and General Business Park Employment Zone (EMP -5) with Site Specific Provision (78) and Site Specific Provision (79) to Mixed Use Two Zone (MIX -2) with Site Specific Provision (366) and Holding Provision (46H) represents good planning. The ZBA will permit redevelopment of the lands with high density residential use and includes a mixed-use component due to 20 live/work units that are proposed on the ground floor. The requested Site Specific Provision will ensure that the lands are developed in accordance with the principles of the Urban Design Brief. The requested Holding Provision will ensure that heritage and Regional conditions are implemented, prior to development commencing. Accordingly, Planning staff recommends approval of the ZBA per Attachment B. Moreover, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested ZBA to change the zoning of the subject property on Bridge from Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) to Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) with Site Specific Provision (367) and Holding Provision (47H) represents good planning, Page 31 of 387 since it will facilitate the preservation of two buildings with heritage interest and facilitate low rise residential development of a property that has been vacant for decades. It should also be noted that the ZBA will facilitate the redevelopment of 528-550 Lancaster Street West with 1,281 rental apartments — a significant community benefit during the ongoing housing crisis. Planning staff supports the proposed development and recommends that the proposed ZBA be approved as shown in Attachment G. Deaartment and Aaencv Comments: 528-550 Lancaster Street West Circulation of the OPA and ZBA was undertaken in September 2021 to all applicable City departments and other review authorities. All concerns have been addressed through changes to the proposal through the application review or through recommended holding provisions. Copies of the comments are found in Attachment E of this report. The following list represents a summary of primary reports and studies that were considered as part of the requested OPA and ZBA: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by: MHBC Planning, June 2021 • Addendum to Planning Justification Report Prepared by: MHBC Planning, December 22, 2022 • Urban Design Brief Prepared by: MHBC Planning, May 2022 (Revised March 2023) • Pedestrian Level Wind Preliminary Impact Assessment (Appendix A to Urban Design Brief) Prepared by: The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, Western University, March 30, 2023 • Shadow Study (Appendix B to Urban Design Brief) Prepared by: Cusimano Architects, March 2023 • Overlook Analysis (Appendix C to Urban Design Brief) Prepared by: Cusimano Architects, March 2023 • Tree Preservation Report 1.0 Prepared by: Pinnacle Tree & Shrub Care, May 9, 2021 • Supplementary Report to Tree Preservation Report 1.0 Prepared by: Pinnacle Tree & Shrub Care, April 13, 2022 • Heritage Impact Assessment Report (Revised) Prepared by: MHBC Planning, May 2022 • Addendum to Heritage Impact Assessment Report Prepared by: MHBC Planning, December, 2022 • Feasibility to Move Structures Prepared by VanBoxmeer & Stranges, April 26, 2022 Page 32 of 387 • Stage 1-2 Archaeological Property Assessment Prepared by: AMICK Consultants, July 9, 2020 • Transportation Impact Study and Parking Study Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions, June 2021 • Transportation Impact Study Comment Response Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions, May 18, 2022 • Site Servicing Feasibility Study Prepared by: Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd., May 26, 2022 • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Prepared by: Chung & Vander Doelen, August 29, 2019 • Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Prepared by: Chung & Vander Doelen, September 27, 2019 • Noise Feasibility Study Prepared by: HGC Engineering, May 26, 2021 26 Bridge Street West Circulation of the ZBA was undertaken in October 2022 to all applicable City departments and other review authorities. All concerns have been addressed through changes to the proposal through the application review or through recommended holding provisions. Copies of the comments are found in Attachment I of this report. The following list represents a summary of primary reports and studies that were considered as part of the requested OPA and ZBA: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by: MHBC Planning, June 2022 • Urban Design Brief Prepared by MHBC Planning, June 2022 • Heritage Impact Assessment Report (Revised) Prepared by: MHBC Planning, May 2022 • Addendum to Heritage Impact Assessment Report Prepared by: MHBC Planning, August 4, 2022 • Scoped Environmental Impact Study • Prepared by: Aboud & Associates Inc, June 17, 2022 • Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment Prepared by: AMICK Consultants, June 1, 2022 • Site Servicing Feasibility Study Prepared by: Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd., June 3, 2022 Page 33 of 387 • Slope Stability Assessment Report Prepared by: Chung & Vander Doelen, February 24, 2022 • Noise Feasibility Study Prepared by: HGC Engineering, June 7, 2022 Community Input & Staff Responses WHAT WE HEARD 344 households (occupants and property owners) were circulated and notified of the Lancaster Application and 209 for the Bridge Street application Approximately 69 people/households/businesses provided comments A City -led Neighbourhood Meeting was held on January 20, 2022 and approximately 67 different users logged on In response to community circulation related to the subject lands on Lancaster, staff received written responses from 69 households / businesses, which are included as Attachment F. A Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting was held on January 20, 2022. In addition, staff had follow-up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public. In response to community circulation related to the subject lands on Bridge, staff received no written responses. However, the Mayor's Office did receive one phone message from a Bridgeport resident expressing support for both proposals and noting that the new developments will make the Bridgeport Area more modern -looking. A high-level summary of what staff heard from the community regarding the proposal for the subject lands on Lancaster, along with staff responses, are noted below: What Staff Heard from the Community Staff Response Transportation Concerns: The main roads in the vicinity of the subject lands are • Difficulty completing turning Regional roads, including Lancaster Street, Bridgeport movements Road, and Bridge Street. A Transportation Impact Study • Road systems already (TIS) was submitted and reviewed by Regional overwhelmed Transportation staff. Region staff have not yet approved • Traffic study does not accurately the TIS. The TIS recommended a dual left turn lane on reflect reality Lancaster Street West (RR#29). To determine whether this • Limited transit and pedestrian turn land is justified and can be accommodated, a detailed options plan with cross-sections showing the building locations • Pedestrian safety and post -widening right-of-way must be submitted for Page 34 of 387 review by Region staff. Apart from this matter, the Region has not identified any other transportation -related concerns. Region staff are agreeable to a holding provision to prohibit development and land uses until such time as a final TIS has been submitted by the applicant's transportation engineer and approved to the Region's satisfaction. The subject lands are well served by transit, noting that the lands are located on two local bus routes (Routes #5 and #6). Regarding pedestrian safety, currently, along the section of Lancaster Street directly abutting the subject land, a sidewalk is located only on the west (opposite) side of Lancaster Street, though sidewalks on both sides of Lancaster Street are present immediately south of 528 Lancaster St W (to the south) and recommencing two properties north of the subject lands on Lancaster (i.e., in front of 562 Lancaster St W). Regional staff advise that as part of the Lancaster Street Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment Study, the installation of a sidewalk on the east (same) side of Lancaster Street to service the existing building at 528 Lancaster was added. Due to the subject proposal, the Region has advised it will also install a sidewalk service to the balance of the subject lands. The sidewalk is expected to be installed in 2025. Page 35 of 387 The Official Plan currently allows for the possibility of building heights up to 12 storeys and a Floor Space Ratio of 5.0 through a ZBA. The applicant is seeking to increase these permissions to allow a building height of 34 storeys and an FSR of 7.5. The proposal represents a significant increase to height and massing permissions. If approved, the proposed development would likely be the largest redevelopment project within the Bridgeport area. The Built Form & Character Concerns: subject lands are also one of the largest consolidated redevelopment sites within the area. However, Official • The proposal is incompatible in terms of scale, height, and Plan and Zoning By-law are not fixed documents. The density Planning Act is established with provisions for • The existing character and municipalities to entertain changes to height and massing charm of the area will be provisions within the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. As negatively impacted outlined in the above Planning Analysis, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested height and massing increases are justified. Also, it must be noted that the character of the Bridgeport area will continue to change over time as a result of existing Official Plan and zoning permissions which already allow greater height and massing than currently exists, regardless of the subject proposal. Page 35 of 387 As part of the application submission, the applicant's environmental consultant prepared a Tree Preservation Report. This report was reviewed by City Environmental Planning staff. The report confirms that all 211 trees inventoried on the lands would be removed to facilitate the proposed development. The construction would cause severe root loss on existing trees. However, removal of existing vegetation is justified by replacement with native species with the redevelopment. A Tree Inventory table was provided to Environmental Planning staff which outlines that the total value of the vegetation to be removed is $58,015.81. This value forms the basis for compensation plantings that would need to be provided beyond the base standards of the Urban Design Manual, through the landscape plan that will be required Natural Environmental Concerns: as part of the future Site Plan Application (SPA) process. • Concern about destruction and Through the SPA and landscape design processes, loss of environmental features extensive tree planting will be required. (e.g., trees, wildlife & habitat, Grand River) In accordance with the Tree Preservation Report 1.0, no endangered, threatened, special concern, or expatriated trees are present on the lands, as per the `Endangered Species Act Ontario Regulation 230 / 08 Species at Risk in Ontario List'. It must be noted that removal of all the trees will have an impact on ecological functions and the distribution of woodland cover in the local planning community. If the requested OPA and ZBA are supported, an ecologically sound tree replacement plan will be imperative to mitigate impacts, as part of any future SPA process. As part of the application submission, the applicant submitted a Sustainability Statement. Environmental Planning staff reviewed this statement and supports the proposals since several sustainable measures have been Page 36 of 387 As part of the application submission, the applicant provided a Parking Study was prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions and reviewed by City Transportation Services staff. Transportation Services Parking Concerns: staff advise that to assist in reducing vehicle dependency, • Insufficient parking is proposed there are Transportation Demand Management strategies for the site being employed for this development, which include • Parking will overflow onto streets charging for parking as a separate cost to the residents, within the nearby low rise provision of Class A bicycle parking spaces, connectivity residential area to existing pedestrian facilities, existing Grand River Transit routes and future cycling facilities. Transportation Services staff advise that they have no concerns with the parking rates ultimately outlined in the draft Zoning By-law Amendment. As part of the application submission, the applicant's environmental consultant prepared a Tree Preservation Report. This report was reviewed by City Environmental Planning staff. The report confirms that all 211 trees inventoried on the lands would be removed to facilitate the proposed development. The construction would cause severe root loss on existing trees. However, removal of existing vegetation is justified by replacement with native species with the redevelopment. A Tree Inventory table was provided to Environmental Planning staff which outlines that the total value of the vegetation to be removed is $58,015.81. This value forms the basis for compensation plantings that would need to be provided beyond the base standards of the Urban Design Manual, through the landscape plan that will be required Natural Environmental Concerns: as part of the future Site Plan Application (SPA) process. • Concern about destruction and Through the SPA and landscape design processes, loss of environmental features extensive tree planting will be required. (e.g., trees, wildlife & habitat, Grand River) In accordance with the Tree Preservation Report 1.0, no endangered, threatened, special concern, or expatriated trees are present on the lands, as per the `Endangered Species Act Ontario Regulation 230 / 08 Species at Risk in Ontario List'. It must be noted that removal of all the trees will have an impact on ecological functions and the distribution of woodland cover in the local planning community. If the requested OPA and ZBA are supported, an ecologically sound tree replacement plan will be imperative to mitigate impacts, as part of any future SPA process. As part of the application submission, the applicant submitted a Sustainability Statement. Environmental Planning staff reviewed this statement and supports the proposals since several sustainable measures have been Page 36 of 387 Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, Planning staff is supportive of the requested Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendments (ZBAs) to permit 528-550 Lancaster Street West to be developed with a high-density residential development, including 20 live/work units and to permit 26 Bridge Street West to be developed with two single detached dwellings within an attached dwelling units each. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. Planning staff recommends that the OPA be adopted and the ZBAs be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 37 of 387 proposed or are being considered for the development. As part of a future site plan application, a Sustainability Statement will be required which will further explore and/or confirm additional sustainability measures that are best suited to the development. The two dwellings of heritage interests (i.e., 544 and 546 Lancaster St W) are proposed to be relocated to 26 Bridge Street West. Planning staff is recommending a holding provision to prohibit development of the subject lands until a Relocation and Conservation Plan have been submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. Moreover, as part of the future Site Plan Application process, Heritage Planning staff will require additional Heritage Concerns: conditions related to these dwellings to ensure their • The area possesses heritage successful relocation and preservation: value and there are heritage . That the holding provision be lifted prior to any homes present on the site. These grading, construction or demolition activities can take homes would be removed to place; facilitate the proposal • That a Letter of Credit be provided for the costs of relocated the existing houses at 544-546 Lancaster Street West, including any stabilization work that may be required. The securities will be released once the houses have been successfully moved. • That within 6 months of occupancy, the owner shall install a commemorative plaque at 528-550 Lancaster Street West. • That the relocated properties be listed as non- designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest the day they are successfully moved. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, Planning staff is supportive of the requested Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendments (ZBAs) to permit 528-550 Lancaster Street West to be developed with a high-density residential development, including 20 live/work units and to permit 26 Bridge Street West to be developed with two single detached dwellings within an attached dwelling units each. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. Planning staff recommends that the OPA be adopted and the ZBAs be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 37 of 387 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 both subject properties and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in 2021. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those who responded to the preliminary circulation (applies only to 528-550 Lancaster Street West), and those who attended the Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting on January 20, 2022 (applies only to 528-550 Lancaster Street West, since no Neighbourhood Meeting was held regarding 26 Bridge Street West due to a lack of response to the initial circulation). Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on April 14, 2023 (see Attachments D and H). CONSULT — The requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for 528-550 Lancaster Street West was circulated to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands in September 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 69 households / businesses, which are summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails. The requested Zoning By-law Amendment for 26 Bridge Street West was circulated to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on October 7, 2022. In response to this circulation, staff received no written responses. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Regional Official Plan • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Official Plan Amendment re: 528-550 Lancaster St W Attachment B — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment re: 528-550 Lancaster St W Attachment C — Urban Design Brief re: 528-550 Lancaster St W Attachment D — Newspaper Notice re: 528-550 Lancaster St W Attachment E — Department and Agency Comments re: 528-550 Lancaster St W Attachment F — Community Comments re: 528-550 Lancaster St W Attachment G — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment re: 26 Bridge St W Attachment H — Newspaper Notice re: 26 Bridge St W Attachment I — Department and Agency Comments re: 26 Bridge St W Page 38 of 387 AMENDMENT NO. _TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 528-550 Lancaster Street West Page 39 of 387 AMENDMENT NO. TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 528-550 Lancaster Street West INDEX SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee of May 8, 2023 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council Page 40 of 387 AMENDMENT NO. —TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 –TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment will 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 the portion of lands identified on Schedule A from Business Park Employment to Mixed Use; • Amend Map 5 – Specific Policy Areas to remove the lands identified as Area 1 on Schedule B from Specific Policy Area 9. Lancaster Business Park; • Amend Map 5 – Specific Policy Areas to remove the lands identified as Area 2 on Schedule B from Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor; • Amend Map 5 – Specific Policy Areas by adding Specific Policy Area 64. 528-550 Lancaster Street West for the lands identified as Area 1 and 2 on on Schedule B. • Add Policy 15.D.12.64 to Section 15.D.12 to permit a maximum building height of 34 storeys and 110 metres and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.5: o Policy 15.D.12.64 amends three policies in the Mixed Use land use designation: ■ Policy 15.D.4.17.b) is amended to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.5. ■ Policy 15.D.4.22.b) is amended to permit a maximum Building Height of 34 storeys and 110 metres. ■ Policy 15.D.4.13 is amended to require a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres for free-standing retail (this carries forward Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor). Page 41 of 387 SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT Planning Analysis: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13: Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the council of a municipality, in carrying out its responsibilities under the Planning Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest. For example: • The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; • The minimization of waste; • The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; • The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; • The adequate provision of employment opportunities; • The appropriate location of growth and development; • The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; • The promotion of built form that, o Is well-designed, o Encourages a sense of place, and o Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; • 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 and Growth Plan which direct how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is an important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendment adequately addresses the matters of provincial interest outlined above. 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 land use designation and zoning for the subject lands on Lancaster facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the subject lands. Also, the lands are within proximity to transit, including two local bus routes (Route #5 and Route #6). Additionally, the lands are within proximity to the Water Bean Trail, several local parks (e.g., Lancaster Business Park Greenway, Lancaster Park, Bridgeport Trail Natural Area, Joe Page 42 of 387 Thompson Park, Bridgeport Sportsfield, Breithaupt Park), and Bridgeport Community Centre (approx. 800 metres). The proposed development would make efficient use of existing services and adjacent Regional roads, including Lancaster Street, Bridge Street, and Bridgeport Road. Provincial policies support the provision of a broad range of housing, noting that the applicant advises the development would be a purpose-built rental project, consisting of one- and two- bedroom units. Presently, along the section of Lancaster Street directly abutting the subject lands on Lancaster, a sidewalk is located only on the west (opposite) side of Lancaster Street, though sidewalks on both sides of Lancaster Street are present immediately south of 528 Lancaster St W (to the south) and recommencing two properties north of the subject lands on Lancaster. However, Regional staff advise that as part of the Lancaster Street Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment Study, the installation of a sidewalk on the east (same) side of Lancaster Street to service the existing building at 528 Lancaster was added. Due to the subject proposal, the Region has advised it will also install a sidewalk service to the balance of the subject lands. The sidewalk is expected to be installed in 2025. Also, the Region is currently doing a study to determine the need for and configuration of cycling facilities on Bridgeport Road from Erb Street to Lancaster Street. This study will include the Bridgeport/Lancaster intersection and consider the proposed roadworks and active transportation facilities on Lancaster Street, south of the Bridgeport intersection. Any proposed works on Lancaster Street north of Bridgeport Rd will be the subject of a future study. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendment will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands on Lancaster with high-density development that is compatible with the surrounding area, will contribute towards achieving 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 has 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 the requested amendment conforms to 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. 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 applying the policies of the Growth 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; • improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; Page 43 of 387 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; expand convenient access to: o a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; o public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; o an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and o healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. In addition, the Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that provide access to transit and other amenities. The subject lands on Lancaster is within proximity to transit, the provincial highway system, parks, trails, and a community centre. In addition, the proposed building height and massing, along with live/work units proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster, render the proposal high-density, mixed-use development. These aspects of the proposal will assist in achieving a complete and compact community. As noted above, the subject lands on Lancaster are currently split designated Mixed Use and Business Park Employment, according to the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The lands designated Business Park Employment are considered protected employment. In accordance with policy 2.2.5.9 of the Growth Plan, the conversion of lands within employment areas to non - employment uses may be permitted only through a Municipal Comprehensive Review Process (MCR Process). Through the Region's ongoing MCR process, Regional Council endorsed the proposed Regional Employment Area (REA) in April of 2021 which excluded the portion of the subject lands that are designated Business Park Employment from the Region's Protected Employment Area. Regional Employment Areas and corresponding policies were adopted by Regional Council in August 2022 through Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 6) which was approved by the Province in April 2023. Accordingly, Region staff has advised that it has no objection to the redesignation of these lands to non -employment uses. Policy 4.2.7.1 of the Growth Plan states that, "Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas. In this regard, the amendment conforms to this policy because it will ensure the conservation of the two buildings with heritage interest (544 and 546 Lancaster Street West) by facilitating their relocation to 26 Bridge Street West. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendment conforms 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 since this area provides for the physical Page 44 of 387 infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed 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 requested amendment would facilitate development that is well supported by hard and soft infrastructure and services. The proposed developments would provide rental housing at a high- density along with commercial use via live/work units. Regional staff has indicated it has no objections to the proposed application for the subject lands on Lancaster, on the condition that holding provisions are applied to require a transportation impact study, functional servicing and detailed grading plan stormwater management report, detailed transportation and stationary noise study, and a Record of Site Condition. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendment conforms to the Regional Official Plan. Proposed Official Plan Amendment City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014: Land Use Desianation The City of Kitchener Official Plan (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 on Lancaster are currently split designated Mixed Use and Business Park Employment on Map 3 — Land Use of the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Mixed Use land use designation is intended to achieve an appropriate mix of commercial, residential and institutional uses. This designation is also intended to support and provide opportunities for lands to evolve and intensify over time and to allow for a broad range of uses. The Mixed Use designation allows for new appropriately scaled commercial uses that primarily serve the surrounding areas and seeks. Lands designated Mixed Use are to be transit -supportive, pedestrian -oriented, human - scaled and integrated and interconnected with other areas of the city. Redevelopment within these lands is to achieve a high standard of urban design and to be compatible with surrounding low rise neighbourhoods. In addition, the Mixed Use designation contains several policies that speak to building height and massing. For example: 15.D.4.17. The Floor Space Ratio requirements for all new residential or mixed use building development or redevelopment within lands designated Mixed Use will be as follows:... b) A minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 on lands within a City Node, Community Node, or Urban Corridor on Map 2....Further to the above, the implementing zoning will consider and may contain transition regulations to facilitate and permit lands to ultimately meet the minimum Floor Space Ratio requirements as noted above. 15.D.4.19. Notwithstanding Policy 15.D.4.17 b), a minimum Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of up to 4.0 will apply to individual properties where higher density development or redevelopment is desirable and appropriate. The following criteria Page 45 of 387 will be considered as the basis for the implementing zoning: a) the property abuts or has direct access to an arterial or collector road; b) the property is adequately buffered from lands designated Low Rise Residential; and, c) there is adequate existing or planned infrastructure. 15.D.4.20. Notwithstanding Policies 15.D.4.17 c) and 15.D.2.19, the City may, provided that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied, consider a maximum Floor Space Ratio up to 5.0 if the development or redevelopment: a) is designed to LEED certification standard or equivalent building rating system;, b) incorporates a below -grade parking structure, public amenity area, cultural heritage resource and/or public art; and/or, c) contains a food store located internal to a mixed use development. 15.D.4.22. Generally no building will exceed:... b) 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is greater at the highest grade elevation, on lands designated Mixed Use as a Urban Corridor on Map 2. 15.D.4.23. Notwithstanding Policy 15.D.4.22, the City may consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units. It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied. In response to these policies, Planning staff advises that the subject lands on Lancaster have direct access to a Regional ("arterial") road. The lands are adequately buffered from the nearest Low Rise Residential area (approximately 70 metres) by lands on the opposite side of Lancaster Street which are designated and zoned for medium density mixed use development and would permit buildings up to 25 metres in height. The City's Engineering Services and Kitchener Utilities advise that they have no concerns with the proposal with respect to servicing or otherwise. The Region has requested a holding provision to require a Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report prior to development proceeding. The holding provision will prevent development until all engineering matters are adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the Region. The development includes structured parking that is partially below grade and screened from public view. Also, the development will preserve two heritage resources (buildings) by relocating them to 26 Bridge Street and ensuring they are continued to be used for residential purposes. Moreover, the redevelopment provides 20 live/work units that will provide opportunities for non- residential (e.g., commercial) use on the ground floor of Buildings B and E. The combination of live/work units and dwelling units result in a mixed-use development. Each proposed building will have a pedestrian -scale base between 6 and 8 storeys in height, and appropriate massing along the Lancaster Corridor. Policy 17.E.13.1. of the City of Kitchener Official Plan requires that holding provisions 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. Holding provisions may be used to implement this Plan to ensure that certain conditions, studies or requirements related to a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment are met. In this case, City Heritage staff has requested a holding provision to require a Relocation and Conservation Plan to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. Additionally, the Region has requested application of four Page 46 of 387 holding provisions to ensure the submission and approval of a 1) Transportation Impact Study, 2) Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report, 3) a Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study, and 4) a Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement letter. It should be noted that the Region and City have already been provided with the first three studies/plans noted above, but the holding provision will ensure a final / satisfactory version is provided, based on the approved development. This approach will ensure that all applicable matters will be addressed before development can proceed. The portion of the subject lands on Lancaster designated Mixed Use is also subject to Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor, as shown on Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas, and associated policy 15.D.12.15., which allows free-standing retail uses to be permitted to locate within new buildings, to a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres. Presently, this policy is not applicable to the subject proposal, but will be carried forward via a new Specific Policy Area. The Business Park Employment land use designation applies to lands which are planned as a unit and regarded as a prestigious location for certain industrial uses due to their access to major transportation corridors, high visibility, and distinct identity. The portion of the lands designated Business Park Employment is also subject to Specific Policy Area 9. Lancaster Business Park, as shown on Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas, and associated policy 15.D.12.9., which allows free- standing office and prohibits certain industrial, commercial, manufacturing and storage uses. This policy is not applicable to the subject proposal. The applicant is requesting to amend Map 3 — Land Use by changing the designation of the portion of the lands designated Business Park Employment to Mixed Use. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to amend Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas for the subject lands by removing the portion of the subject lands identified as Specific Policy Area 9. Lancaster Business Park and removing the portion of the subject lands identified as Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor and adding new Specific Policy Area 64. 528-550 Lancaster Street West to the whole of the lands. Lastly, to facilitate the proposed development concept consisting of 1,281 dwelling units plus 20 live/work units, within 5 buildings, Site Specific Policy Area policy 15.D.12.64 would be added, to add the following provisions: • The maximum building height shall be 34 storeys and 110 metres; • The maximum floor space ratio shall be 7.5; • A Holding provision pursuant to Section 17.E.13 will apply to prohibit new development or land uses until such time as the following conditions have been met and this holding provision has been removed by by-law: o A Relocation and Conservation Plan have been submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning; o A Transportation Impact Study has been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; o A Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; o A Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study has been completed and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the development on itself (e.g. HVAC system on the sensitive points of reception) and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses; and o A Record of Site Condition (RSC) in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, as amended, has been filed on the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Page 47 of 387 Environmental Site Registry and the RSC and Ministry's Acknowledgement letter is received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. City staff is satisfied that the amendment to bring the lands designated Business Park Employment with Site Specific Policy 9 into the Mixed Use designation with Specific Policy Area 64 is justified. A Municipal Comprehensive Review has occurred as part of ROPA No. 6, and this small portion of land is not essential to the functioning of the Lancaster Business Park employment area. The lands are better served being incorporated into the Lancaster Urban Corridor, given the lot fabric that has changed because of private and public land purchases by the developer. Planning staff is of the opinion that application of the Mixed Use designation to the whole of the subject lands on Lancaster, along with the requested Specific Policy Area and holding provisions, is supportable in this context. Urban Structure The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built-up Area in key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), Major Transit Station Areas, City Nodes, Community Nodes, and Urban Corridors, per Policy 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan, and as shown in Figure 1, below. The portion of the subject lands on Lancaster that are designated Mixed Use are located within an Urban Corridor in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan, while the portion that is designated Business Park Employment is identified as Industrial Employment Areas. It should be noted that no change to the Urban Structure mapping is requested for the portion designated Business Park Employment. This is because the boundaries of Urban Structure components are interpretive. Accordingly, should the OPA be adopted to change the land use designation and specific policy area for those lands designated Business Park Employment, no change to the Urban Structure map will be required and the whole of the subject land will be interpreted as Urban Corridor. Urban Corridors are identified as a Primary Intensification Area in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure. Urban Corridors are generally linear in form and are located along existing or planned transit corridors. They are intended to have strong pedestrian linkages and be integrated with neighbouring residential and employment uses. The subject lands on Lancaster have direct access to a Regional road and are close to two other Regional roads (Bridgeport Road and Bridge Street). The lands are located on two local GRT transit routes. According to policy 3.C.2.38 of the Official Plan, the planned function of Urban Corridors is to provide for a range of retail and commercial uses and intensification opportunities that should be transit -supportive. Urban Corridors function as the spine of a community as well as a destination for surrounding neighbourhoods. Strengthening linkages and establishing compatible interfaces between the Urban Corridors and surrounding Community Areas and Industrial Employment areas are priorities for development in these areas. The proposed development is planned for mixed use, providing 20 live/work units and 1,281 purpose-built rental dwelling units. io Page 48 of 387 Figure 10. Diagram from the City of Kitchener Official Plan illustrating the City's Urban Structure and Predominant Land Uses. The current and proposed Land Use Designations and current Urban Structure Component are circled in red, for context. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit while ensuring development directly fronting Lancaster Street is pedestrian- and transit- friendly. Buildings with the greatest height and massing are located further from Lancaster Street and the Low Rise Residential neighbourhood located west of the Lancaster Urban Corridor. In this way, the proposal is context sensitive to surrounding lands. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment will support a development that complies with the City's Urban Corridor policies and contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally -friendly city. Urban Design The City's Urban Design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. In the opinion of staff, the development proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster 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 was submitted and has been reviewed by City staff. The Urban Design Brief outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed zoning by-law regulations. Streetscape — The Lancaster Street frontage is activated by 11 ground floor live/work units within Buildings B and E (9 other live/work ground floor live/work units face the interior of the site and 11 Page 49 of 387 Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) Predominant Land Designation City Centre District Civic District Market District Innovation District Mixed Use ' Ma or Transit Station Area TBD by Station Area Plan Exercise City Node Community Node Commercial Campus Commercial Mixed Use Institutional Medium Rise Residential High Rise Residential Commercial Mixed Use Institutional Medium Rise Residential High Rise Residential Urban Corridor Neighbourhood Node Commercial Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use Arterial Corridor Commercial COMMUNITY AREAS Low Rise Residential Medium Rise Residential High Rise Residential Institutional Major infrastructure & Utilities INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT AREAS Heavy Industrial Employment General Industrial Em to mart usiness Park p Em Io men GREEN AREAS Natural Heritage onsenalion Open Space Figure 10. Diagram from the City of Kitchener Official Plan illustrating the City's Urban Structure and Predominant Land Uses. The current and proposed Land Use Designations and current Urban Structure Component are circled in red, for context. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit while ensuring development directly fronting Lancaster Street is pedestrian- and transit- friendly. Buildings with the greatest height and massing are located further from Lancaster Street and the Low Rise Residential neighbourhood located west of the Lancaster Urban Corridor. In this way, the proposal is context sensitive to surrounding lands. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment will support a development that complies with the City's Urban Corridor policies and contributes to the vision for a sustainable and more environmentally -friendly city. Urban Design The City's Urban Design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. In the opinion of staff, the development proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster 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 was submitted and has been reviewed by City staff. The Urban Design Brief outlines the vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed zoning by-law regulations. Streetscape — The Lancaster Street frontage is activated by 11 ground floor live/work units within Buildings B and E (9 other live/work ground floor live/work units face the interior of the site and 11 Page 49 of 387 are accessible from a common corridor). Furthermore, the building entrances for the two proposed buildings abutting Lancaster Street (Buildings B and E) have principal entrances facing Lancaster Street with access to public sidewalks. While the existing 10 storey building (Building A) does not have a base (podium), all proposed buildings have clearly defined bases that will enhance the streetscape. Safety — As part of the site plan approval process, staff will ensure Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site meets the Ontario Building Code and the City's Emergency Services Policy. Universal Design — The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code. Skyline — The proposed towers will provide a new feature on the City's skyline within the Bridgeport area. The proposed buildings through their varied height will create visual interest from several different vantage points, including from the opposite side of the Grand River. Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale — The subject site is designed to have buildings that are developed at a scale that is compatible with the existing and planned built form for the surrounding area. The towers closest to Lancaster Street are shorter in height, while the towers farthest from Lancaster Street are taller. All proposed towers have well defined bases of varying heights — which creates interest — as well as building stepbacks which will enhance the public realm. For example, the base of Building B is 6 storeys, while the base of Building E is 8 storeys. Planning staff recommends endorsement of the Urban Design Brief for the subject lands on Lancaster Street. Shadow Imaact Stud As part of the Urban Design Brief, the owner completed a Shadow Impact Study for the subject lands on Lancaster. Urban Design staff have reviewed the study (and updated study based on the revised design) 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. It should be noted that there is very minimal shadow cast on the low rise residential neighbourhood to the west of the Lancaster Urban Corridor because the proposed development arranged such that the tallest buildings are located furthest from Lancaster Street and due to the orientation of the buildings relative to the sun's path. While the single detached dwelling immediately to the north of the subject lands would be impacted as a result of the proposed development, the dwelling is located within the Lancaster Urban Corridor, possesses the same MIX -2 (49) zoning as the subject lands currently possesses (which permits a development with a building height of 25 metres / 8 storeys), and is considered legal non -conforming since single detached dwellings are not a permitted use. These lands are planned to redevelop over time with a more dense use. Wind Study The owner completed a pedestrian level wind preliminary impact assessment for the subject lands on Lancaster. This assessment was reviewed by Urban Design staff. The assessment concludes the development is not expected to have significant wind influence on neighbouring properties. Wind control features will be required through the future site plan application and a full Wind Assessment will be required and reviewed at this future stage. Any mitigation measures to address pedestrian level wind impacts will be implemented through the site and building design through the site plan approval process. 12 Page 50 of 387 Tall Buildina Guidelines The development proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster have also been reviewed for compliance with the City's Design for Tall Buildings Guidelines (part of the City's Urban Design Manual). 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. Urban Design staff has reviewed the Urban Design Brief, dated May 2022 (Revised March 2023), submitted in support of the development applications. The Urban Design Brief generally achieves most of the standards set out in the Urban Design Manual, including the Tall Building Guidelines. The Urban Design Brief provides preliminary shadow and wind studies, both of which will be finalized through the future site plan approval process (full wind tunnel study and full shadow analysis based on final building massing). Any required changes identified will be implemented through the site plan process. Based on the above, Planning staff recommends that the Urban Design Brief be endorsed. 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 a combination of land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a wide range of transportation choices viable. As aforementioned, the subject lands on Lancaster are located within the Lancaster Urban Corridor and within proximity to Highway 85 and two local bus routes. The subject proposal will support current and future transit service and build transit ridership. Additionally, 640 secured bicycle parking stalls will be implemented, as required by Zoning By-law 2019-051. Housing Policies: Section 4. 1.1 of the City's Official Plan states that it is a City 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. In addition, 4.C.1.12. states that "The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods." The development proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster will increase the range of dwelling units available in the city, and within the Bridgeport area. The site development concept includes a mix of 1-, and 2- bedroom rental dwelling units. The range of unit types in this location will appeal to a variety of household needs. The mixed-use nature of the proposed redevelopment as well as the building form will assist in achieving complete community. 13 Page 51 of 387 Sustainable Development: Section 7.C.4.1 of the City's Official Plan ensures developments will increasingly be sustainable by encouraging, supporting and, where appropriate, requiring: a) compact development and efficient built form; b) environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and construction practices; c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; d) the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and, e) transit -supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active modes of transportation such as cycling and walking. The applicant submitted a Sustainability Statement in support of the development proposed for the subject lands on Lancaster. Environmental Planning staff reviewed this statement and supports the proposals since several sustainable measures have been proposed or are being considered for the development. As part of a future site plan application, a Sustainability Statement will be required which will further explore and/or confirm additional sustainability measures that are best suited to the development. Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor The subject lands on Lancaster are proposed to be removed from Specific Policy Area 15 as a new Special Policy Area 64 is proposed. The policy from Special Policy Area 15 is being carried forward to implement a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres for free-standing retail uses, to align with the balance of the Lancaster Street Urban Corridor. Official Plan Amendment Conclusions Based on the above noted policy analysis, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested Official Plan Amendment represents good planning and recommends that the requested Official Plan Amendment be adopted. SECTION 4—THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) is hereby amended as follows: a. Amend Map No. 3 — Land Use by changing the land use designation of the portion of the subject lands designated Business Park Employment to Mixed Use, as shown on the attached Schedule A; b. Amend Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas to remove the lands identified as Area 1 on Schedule B from Specific Policy Area 9. Lancaster Business Park; c. Amend Map No. 5 — Specific Policy Areas to remove the lands identified as Area 2 on Schedule B from Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor; d. Amend Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas by adding Specific Policy Area 64. 528-550 Lancaster Street West for the lands identified as Area 1 and 2 on Schedule B. e. Part D, Section 15.D.12 is amended by adding Site Specific Policy Area policy 15.D.12.64 as follows: 14 Page 52 of 387 "15.D.12.64 528-550 Lancaster Street West Notwithstanding the Mixed Use land use designation and associated policies within Section 15.D.4, the following shall apply only to the lands addressed as 528-550 Lancaster Street West: The maximum building height shall be 34 storeys and 110 metres; The maximum floor space ratio shall be 7.5; iii. A Holding provision pursuant to Section 17.E.13 will apply to prohibit new development or land uses until such time as the following conditions have been met and this holding provision has been removed by by-law: 1. A Relocation and Conservation Plan have been submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Heritage Planner and Director of Planning; 2. A Transportation Impact Study has been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; 3. A Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report has been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; 4. A Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study has been completed and accepted and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the development on itself (e.g. HVAC system on the sensitive points of reception) and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses; and 5. A Record of Site Condition (RSC) in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, 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." iv. Notwithstanding the Mixed Use land use designation along Lancaster Street West, free-standing retail uses will be permitted to locate within new buildings, to a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres." 15 Page 53 of 387 APPENDIX 1: Notice of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (May 8, 2023) NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING fora development in your neighbourhood 528-550 Lancaster Street West IiTc= Have Your Voice Heard! Concept Drawing A3 rM ':: g 15 Map Multiple Residential 111 41 11 34 Storeys, Floor Space Ratio of 7.5 0 1281 Dwelling Units & 20 Live/Work Units Date: May 8, 2023 Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West or'Virtual 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: www.kitchener.ca/ PlanningApplications or contact: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x 7668 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener will consider applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate a residential development having a maximum building height of 34 storeys, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.5, providing 1,281 dwelling units plus 20 live/work units, and having a reduced parking rate of 0.7 parking spaces per dwelling unit and a reduced visitor parking rate of 0.09 parking spaces per dwelling unit. 16 Page 54 of 387 APPENDIX 2: Minutes of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (May 8, 2023) 17 Page 55 of 387 APPENDIX 3 - Minutes of the Meeting of City Council (May 29, 2023) 18 Page 56 of 387 J d6 d6m CITY OF KITCHENER 4.. w OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO MAP 3 LAND USE —r"7-717 "r.ri .—r.--l—r . - r. r.- r. '.- r r 4.- .'C .17 .'C 7C N r v v Low Rise Residential fi�F. & - 4^f- & & fi�1L. Mixed Use 7 j:' •-6 j' d6 d67 General Industrial Employment I- Business Park Employment r r (7 r Institutional F. - 4�­ r.- X Natural Heritage Conservation r f r C. zw Open Space e r -A S; r Refer to Secondary Plan For Detail .46 40 Area of Amendment From Business Park Employment To Mixed Use jr — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -------- — -- ------- —_—_—_—_—_—_----s- ----------------------------- ----- SCHEDULE 0 250 REVISED: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/010/L/AP APPLICANT: 550 LANCASTER INC. & METRES ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/015/L/AP 528 LANCASTER STREET WEST INC. SCALE 1:8,000 Cityof Kitchener FILE, OPA21010LAP—MAP3 528-550 LANCASTER ST W mxd DATE: APRIL 11, 2023 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING 11, 11, P F1WVVVVVV1WVVVV1WV ►................a��i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�il.�i!.!�!.1.�•� .�000000000000�..00 D00000•��� � • • OFFICIAL ►i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�� AMENDMENT TO MAP 5 SPECIFIC POLICY AREAS Specific Policy Areas • 9.•� Y Lancaster- ss Park ►i�i�i�i '. Bridgeport N• Lancaster15. •.n Corridor Refer to Urban Growth Centre 00 110 0101, 00000, e and Secondary Plans for details per �■ Nor �,■•Area of Amendment �/ j • , Area 1 To Remove From Specific Policy Area 9. Lancaster Business Park And To Add Specific Policy Area 64. 528-550 Lancaster rr- To Remove From Specific Policy Area 15. Lancaster Urban Corridor And To Add Specific Policy Area . / Lancaster St W APPLICANT: 550 LANCASTER INC. & METRES ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/015/L/AP : LANCASTE` 10,000 City of Kitchener FILE •- PROPOSED BY — LAW 2023 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — 550 Lancaster Inc. & 528 Lancaster Street West Inc. — 528-550 Lancaster Street West) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend 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. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 126 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 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 Mixed Use Two Zone (MIX -2) with Site Specific Provision (49) to Mixed Use Two Zone (MIX -2) with Site Specific Provision (366) and Holding Provision (46H). 2. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 126 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 2 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from General Business Park Employment Zone (EMP -5) with Site Specific Provision (78) and Site Specific Provision (79) to Mixed Use Two Zone (MIX -2) with Site Specific Provision (366) and Holding Provision (46H). 3. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 126 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 4. Section 19 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Site Specific Provision (366) thereto as follows: "(366). Notwithstanding Section 5.6, Table 5-5, Section 8.3, and 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 Number 126 of Appendix "A", the following site specific provisions shall apply: Document Number: 4357075 Version: 1 Page 59 of 387 a) The maximum building height shall be 110 metres, measured from the highest grade at the perimeter of the building; b) The maximum number of storeys within 40 metres of the street line of Lancaster Street shall be 18 storeys, measured from highest finished grade. c) The maximum number of storeys shall be 34 storeys; d) The minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) shall be 1.0; e) The maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) shall be 7.5; f) The minimum street line stepback for mid -rise buildings and tall buildings constructed after the date of passing of this by-law shall be 1.5 metres; g) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 4.2 metres; h) The maximum number of storeys in the base of a mid -rise or tall building shall be 8 storeys; i) The minimum percent street line fagade openings shall be 43%; j) The minimum parking rate for dwelling units shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit, to a maximum of 1,300 dwelling units; k) The minimum visitor parking rate for dwelling units shall be 0.1 spaces per unit, to a maximum of 1,300 dwelling units; 1) The minimum parking rate for live / work units shall be 1 space per 67 square metres of gross floor area which accommodates such use. 5. Section 20 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Section (46H) thereto as follows: "(46). Notwithstanding Section 8 of this By-law within the lands zoned MIX -2 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 126 of Appendix "A", no new development or land uses shall be permitted until such time as the following conditions have been met and this holding provision has been removed by by-law: a) A Relocation and Conservation Plan have been submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Heritage Planner and Director of Planning; b) A Transportation Impact Study has been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; c) A Functional Servicing and Detailed Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Report has been submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; Document Number: 4357075 Version: 1 Page 60 of 387 d) A Detailed Transportation and Stationary Noise Study has been completed and accepted and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the development on itself (e.g. HVAC system on the sensitive points of reception) and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. e) A Record of Site Condition (RSC) in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, as amended, has been filed with 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." 6. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _ (528- 550 Lancaster Street West) 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 12023. Mayor Clerk Document Number: 4357075 Version: 1 Page 61 of 387 1 (39)I I MIX -2 (49) ZONE GRID REFERENCE SCHEDULE NO. 126 OF APPENDIX'A' KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 MIX -2 ZONE LIMITS ), SR -3 (10 INS -1 FLOODING HAZARD REjS116'402) 1) .i:i / SLOPE EROSION HAZARD MAP NO. 1 550 LANCASTER INC. & 528 LANCASTE STREET WEST INC. 528-550 LANCASTER ST W 0 50 100 METRES SCALE 1:4,000 DATE: APRIL 11, 2023 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/015/L/AP OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/010/L/AP City of Kitchener FILE ZBA21015LAP_MAP1 DEVELOPME T SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING mxd )MIX-2�SUBJECTAREA(S) �� MIX-2 I, _ AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 2019-051 Mlx-21a 1491'(1041 IX -2 1) j ! Via' M49) ' ��� AREA 1 - N FROM MIXED USE TWO ZONE (MIX -2) Mlx-z M-zlatl, %! - WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (49) (41) 1 2) �i�� TO MIXED USE TWO ZONE (MIX -2) UF -1 J 1) • / WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (366) t ~, . EUF-1 /', AND HOLDING PROVISION (46H) (91) MIX -2 MIXi� , AREA2- (49) _ (49),( �i �---"-- — _ FROM GENERAL BUSINESS PARK EMPLOYMENT — ZONE (EMP -5) DR ( ) 41`' i*-/, / WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS (79), (78) (49) TO MIXED USE TWO ZONE (MIX -2) -3 ES -4 WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (366) AND HOLDING PROVISION (46H) SAL DR MIX -2 i /� , BY-LAW 2019-051 (49), EUF-1 EXISTING USE FLOODPLAIN ZONE AREA 1 (40) EMP -5 GENERAL BUSINESS PARK EMPLOYMENT ZONE INS -1 NEIGHBOURHOOD INSTITUTIONAL ZONE AREA 2 / ' �• ��L •'//NHC-1 MIX -2 MIXED USE TWO ZONE LAN CRE -!/ / /%• NATURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION RES MI -2 (6H) mix (gp ./ SCHEDULE 126 _ �� _ _ _� �/� // _ _ _ _ ZONE OSR-3 OPEN SPACE: STORMWATER MIX -2 SCHEDULE 125�Z '!�� MANAGMENT ZONE (''( , •#!/� (RES -1) LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL ONE ZONE , �• (RES -2) LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL TWO ZONE MIX -2 (41) P-5 MIX- j !i -, (RES -3) LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL THREE ZONE (79),( �i�/jam , ti� (RES -4) LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE MIX- •'!j !%•, (RES -5) LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE (I 9), (102 1 (39)I I MIX -2 (49) ZONE GRID REFERENCE SCHEDULE NO. 126 OF APPENDIX'A' KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 MIX -2 ZONE LIMITS ), SR -3 (10 INS -1 FLOODING HAZARD REjS116'402) 1) .i:i / SLOPE EROSION HAZARD MAP NO. 1 550 LANCASTER INC. & 528 LANCASTE STREET WEST INC. 528-550 LANCASTER ST W 0 50 100 METRES SCALE 1:4,000 DATE: APRIL 11, 2023 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/015/L/AP OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/010/L/AP City of Kitchener FILE ZBA21015LAP_MAP1 DEVELOPME T SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING mxd URBAN DESIGN BRIEF 550 LANCASTER INC. C/O CORLEY DEVELOPMENTS INC. J/ -o, J-+-+ Ck JJV L,yNCASTER STREET W, KITCHENL 9,sT�N74T�0N C lfflff rNIT� COU�CT�aN MAY 2022 (REVISED MARCH 2023) 1 "ffro P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE M H BC ARCHITECTURE -, Yl - _�_L.4 a 1 H Ali Tj 010 11 a 0 INTRODUCTION & NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 SUBJECT LANDS & CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS 1 PROJECT VISION &DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 4 2.1 PROJECT VISION &DESIGN OBJECTIVES 4 2.2 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 6 DESIGN PRINCIPLES & URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES 14 3.1 DESIGN RESPONSE TO CITY OF KITCHENER POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 14 3.2 CPTED CONSIDERATIONS 30 MICROCLIMATE IMPACTS 31 4.1 MICROCLIMATE IMPACTS 31 CONCLUSION 33 5.1 CONCULSION 33 • WIND STUDY �� I SHADOW STUDY �_r I OVERLOOK ANALYSIS Page 64 of 387 SECTION 1 1 . 1 INTRODUCTION MHBC Planning has been retained by 550 Lancaster Inc. c/o Corley Developments Inc. to prepare an Urban Design Brief for the redevelopment of properties municipally known as 528, 544, and 550 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario (hereinafter referred to as the "subject lands"). The subject lands have a total area of 1.67 hectares (4.13 acres) and are currently occupied by three residential dwellings, located on the east side of Lancaster Street West north of the intersection of Lancaster Street West and Bridgeport Road East. The lands are designated as Mixed Use in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and are located within an Urban Corridor as identified on the Urban Structure Map in the Official Plan. Urban design is an important component of city planning and goes beyond just being concerned for the visual and aesthetic quality and character but is also considered with the functionality and compatibility of development and how it contributes to complete and healthy communities that are safe, attractive, thriving, innovative and inclusive. The purpose of this Urban Design Brief is to describe the physical arrangement of the development proposal, provide insight as to why certain design decisions are appropriate given the site specific context and how the proposal is consistent with and supportive of City of Kitchener policies and design directives. This design brief has been prepared in accordance with the urban design comments from the 'Record of Pre - Submission Consultation" meetings held on May 14, 2019 and April 15, 2021. 1 551: LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief 1.2SUBJECT LANDS & CONTEXTUAL ANYLSIS The subject lands are located within the Bridgeport West community, near the municipal boundary of the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo, and just two blocks north of Conestoga Parkway and located on the Lancaster Transit Corridor. Four existing transit stops are located on Lancaster Street West less than 250 metres or a minute walk from the subject lands. Currently occupied by three large lot residential dwellings, the subject lands are made up of three parcels that have a combined area of approximately 1.67 hectares (4.13 acres). The subject lands are triangular in shape with approximately 135 metres of frontage on Lancaster Street West with a maximum lot depth of approximately 136 metres. The subject lands slope significantly from the highest grade near the intersection of Lancaster Street W and Bridgeport Road to the lowest grade near the intersection of Lancaster Street West and General Drive. The lands are located within an designated Urban Corridor, adjacent the Lancaster Transit Corridor, and planned to function as the gateway to Bridgeport West. Lands designated urban corridors and adjacent to transit corridors are planned to support primary intensification within the urban boundaries. This stretch of Lancaster Street West is an important thoroughfare and gateway to the community of Bridgeport West and should provide height and densities supportive of planned higher -order transportation. Page 65 of 387 k4e, 43 ...... . . . lk lk SECTION 1 The subject lands are designated Mixed Use in the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and zoned Mixed Use Two (MIX -2) with special provision 49 in the City's Zoning By-law 2019-051. Special provision 49 permits a maximum floor space ratio of 4.0. Uses that immediately surround the subject lands include the following; NORTH: Lands north of the subject property are characterized by a variety of retail, restaurant and other commercial uses. The Lancaster Smoke House and Golf's Steak House are located on the east side of Lancaster St. heading towards Bridge Street. EAST: Directly to the east are Business Park employment lands largely developed with office and service commercial uses. Further east approximately 200 metres from the subject lands is the Grand River with an extensive network of walk/ cycling trails with connections to the broader trail network. SOUTH: A Tim Horton's restaurant with drive-through facility is located directly south of the subject lands at the northeast intersection of Lancaster Street West and Bridgeport Road. Southwest of the subject lands at the northwest intersection of Lancaster St. W and Bridgeport Road land uses include a religious institution and lands currently under development to expand the institutional use with combined non-profit housing. WEST: Lancaster Street West forms the western property boundary. Properties facing east adjacent Lancaster Street West are largely developed with single -detached residential dwellings. A number of office/commercial uses are located further northwest. 3 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 67 of 387 SECTION 2 2AVISION &DESIGN OBJECTIVES The project team envisions a unique mixed use development on the subject lands, sensitive to the adjacent low-rise residential neighbourhood, while achieving a transit supportive density and urban form. The vision for the development is to create a contemporary expression and celebration of the Grand River community through architectural design that provides a'Gateway' to the Lancaster Urban Corridor and new transit focused neighbourhood planned. The vision and proposed redevelopment of the subject lands inspires to influence future redevelopment in the area. The following design objectives provide direction that have guided the proposed development: • Provide for development that will be supportive of transit investment in the Region and alternative transit modes, and will encourage future residents to walk to and from nearby residential, commercial, office and retail uses, services and public amenities. • Create a strong visually appealing street edge along Lancaster Street West that will improve the streetscape and encourage active transportation modes in this location. This includes working with the existing grades to ensure retail uses on Lancaster Street West have direct access to the public sidewalk and enhanced landscaping along the public street frontage. • Design buildings that face Lancaster Street West to be sensitive to the residential uses on the opposite side of Lancaster. Units with individual at -grade entrances within the podium of buildings on Lancaster achieve this objective. • Introducing additional building height within lands designated urban corridor and adjacent a designated transit corridor in a manner that is sympathetic to surrounding uses. 4 550 LANCASTER INC.,,// Urban Design Brief Directing the tallest buildings where impacts on low rise residential areas are minimized. Achieve a high-quality of architectural design and construction that is innovative and timeless, contributing positively to the area and Kitchener's identity. Encourage contemporary architecture that complements rather than competes with the surrounding development. • Provide a development that, through the combination of massing, orientation, enhanced landscape design, pedestrian entrances, mid -block connections, architectural elements, detailing, and material selection, will result in a positive pedestrian experience along the adjacent street frontage, between buildings, and within the planned open spaces. • Design a high quality pedestrian realm focused around the connections to the open space network and proximity to the Grand River. Encourage additional retail and mixed use opportunities along Lancaster Street West. • Create a development which incorporates sustainable design principles and techniques. Page 68 of 387 PROJECT STATISTICS ZONING: MIX- 2 (SPECIAL PROVISION 49) LOT AREA 1,677 Ha (16,767 M2) BUILDING GFA 113,036W FLOOR SPACE RATIO (PSR) 6.74 NUMBER OF SU ITES 1281 RETAIL GFA (20 LIVEANORK UNITS) 1412M2 PARKING CALCULATIONS RETAIL -1 SPACE PER LIVEIWORK UNIT 20 RESIDENTIAL (4.71 SPACES PER SUITE) SEE NOTE 904 TOTAL PARKING SPACES (SEE NOTE) 924 Y Y Y rq V Y Y �M�py�j NOTE: INCLUDES 8 BARRIER FREE PARKING SPACES Ap AND 123 VISITOR SPACES D 11000 '1 ,1 sm I � t r eww� v+Yur hr . pmre 1 _I , mn I CONCEPT PLAN Page 69 of 387 SECTION 2 2.2DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The subject lands present a re -development opportunity along a major arterial corridor, supported by a mix of both established service and prestige employment lands uses in close proximity. The existing large lot residential dwellings comprising the site assembly represent an under utilization of lands situated amidst some of Kitchener -Waterloo's most abundant parkland, trails and vistas/connections to the Grand River. The subject lands are well connected to a number of long-standing commercial establishments which have been recognizable in the community for many years. The proposed development represents a significant investment opportunity in the Lancaster Street Mixed Use Corridor. The proposed mixed use building along the street frontage will include design elements that contribute to the character of the corridor. Enhanced streetscaping will also be considered to further enhance the character and enforce the design vision to provide a gateway to the Lancaster Urban Corridor. Building A is subject to approved site plan SP19/108/L/BB, construction of which has begun. Site Design The proposed "campus style" site plan concept proposes to orient the building mass towards Lancaster Street West which will support the Lancaster Intensification Corridor and become a gateway to "Lancaster on the Grand". 6 55( LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief Ground floor commercial uses will be proposed in the central tower identified as building B oriented parallel to Lancaster Street West. All buildings will be designed with a podium base of varying heights to create a pedestrian scale built form adjacent the public realm. The goal of the development is to act as a focal point within the Lancaster Urban Corridor and provide exceptional views of the Grand River and surrounding environment. The careful placement of buildings within the campus site will reinforce the purpose to become a place to celebrate the beauty of the Grand River. The campus site is designed as a family of buildings with a sense of scale and proportion utilizing like elements with large windows to maximize natural light penetration and bring the outside in. Page 70 of 387 n II I�^016 J II � F . • iii � � +,. • - .•, -hP. '� _�I�•. 'I1FII�9 its 1M0 Ground floor commercial uses will be proposed in the central tower identified as building B oriented parallel to Lancaster Street West. All buildings will be designed with a podium base of varying heights to create a pedestrian scale built form adjacent the public realm. The goal of the development is to act as a focal point within the Lancaster Urban Corridor and provide exceptional views of the Grand River and surrounding environment. The careful placement of buildings within the campus site will reinforce the purpose to become a place to celebrate the beauty of the Grand River. The campus site is designed as a family of buildings with a sense of scale and proportion utilizing like elements with large windows to maximize natural light penetration and bring the outside in. Page 70 of 387 SECTION 2 Built Form The proposed tall buildings (buildings B, C, D and E) would be classified as a 'large slab' in accordance with the City of Kitchener's Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Given that the subject lands' geometry and surrounding context, the proposed slender slab is an appropriate design solution. The "base", the ground floor, of each of the proposed tall buildings will have a floor -to -ceiling height of 5 metres compared to the 3 metre upper floors. The base floor will be treated with a cladding to provide rounding and distinction from the upper floors. Architectural treatment to the ground floor combined with the active uses of the building entry and the live/work units will support a pedestrian -friendly public realm along Lancaster Street West. The building mass of each of the tall buildings will be mitigated through cladding, design articulation, large rhythm of windows, balcony projections, use of light and colour, and vertical and horizontal architectural elements. The "top', the mechanical penthouse, will be clad in the materials utilized throughout the buildings design. Setback from the overall building mass, the mechanical penthouse will denote the top of the towers. 7 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Density The development proposal has a GFA 125,379 m2 and will feature a total of 1281 units across five buildings. There will be a mix of units on each floor including one bedroom units, two bedroom units, and two bedroom plus den units. With a subject lands area of 16,767 m2, the proposed development has a FSR of 7.47. Height and Massing The massing proposed provides a contextually sensitive transition of building heights on the subject lands. Building height is proposed to transition from a 6 storey podium adjacent the Lancaster Street interface, to a 12 storey residential tower, and ultimately to a maximum building height of 34 storeys at the rear of the subject lands. The multifaceted articulated building facades respond to the Page 71 of 387 -I - Py w EAST ELEVATION-SUILDIWC S C ❑ & E Af i2. scale of the community at different levels by breaking down the urban building typology through a clear reading of a base, middle and top. 1W I MAT V1. It, ANV r Y , r r s AW AW - t,WCASTER STREET WEST Massing Model Lancaster Street West View 8 55( LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief r. INNE ...: n 11- LEN [! Siting and Setbacks Buildings B and E are proposed to be orientated parallel to the Lancaster Street West frontage with a 1.5 metre building setback post the future road widening allowance. Sideyard setbacks will be provided for buildings A, C, and E. Both of the proposed towers in building C and D are setback from the rear property line adjacent open space lands, the Walter Bean trail, and Grand River. The proposed four storey podium level of buildings C and D is proposed with no setback from the rear property line in certain locations. The design of the fa4ade will ensure all structured parking proposed adjacent the interface is screened from the public realm. The grading of the subject lands has been considered and incorporated into the design of the structured parking area to establish a appealing interface design. Style and Articulation The proposed buildings will reflect a contemporary architectural style defined using high quality materials and architectural detailing. Awning and balcony projections will be utilized to provide dimension and articulation while breaking up the mass of the proposed buildings horizontally as well as vertically. The detailed building design of each building will be identified and determined through future site plan applications to be prepared for each phase of future development. Page 72 of 387 SECTION 2 Amenity Space The proposed development is committed to providing a variety of high quality and meaningful amenity areas sufficient for all potential residents in the form of common amenity area (indoor and outdoor), as well as private amenity areas in the form of individual patios and balconies. The location of the subject lands is under supplied in park space, the proposed amenity areas will act as important features for accommodating active and passive recreation opportunities in the area. A large outdoor rooftop amenity area is proposed to provide opportunities for general amenity area and children's play facilities for the proposed mixed-use development. Further indoor amenity area is provided with direct access to the outdoor amenity area, and extends the potential amenity opportunities for residents of all ages and abilities, in all seasons. The detailed design of the amenity areas will be completed through the site plan approval process and will provide consideration for a variety of actives to support universal and age friendly design principles and promote positive multi- generational social interactions. The below precedent images identify a variety of design elements and principals to be employed in the detailed design of common amenity areas, and provide a range of active to passive uses. Design features that provide robust amenity spaces suitable for all ages and abilities are to be considered. Connections, Access and Public Realm Two points of access on Lancaster Street West will be proposed, one of which utilizes the access off of the former unopened road allowance of Lang Crescent. A pedestrian access is proposed through building B near the midpoint of the building. The entrance is proposed to lead to a large lobby, a large vestibule and an exterior canopy to delineate the entrance and provide weather/wind protection. The ground floor live/work units will have individual entrances directly onto Lancaster Street West. Individual pathways will lead from the public sidewalk to each entrance. Parking Dedicated space for secure bicycle storage will be provided within the basements of the proposed buildings. Parking is proposed to be provided in the form of one level of underground parking below the two proposed apartment buildings fronting Lancaster Street West. A shared below grade multi-level parking structure accessed at the northerly entrance 9 550 LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 73 of 387 SECTION 2 is also proposed. The total proposed parking ratio is 0.7 spaces/ unit. All parking spaces provided at ground level throughout the property will be accessed from the southerly entrance opposite Lang Crescent and will be well screened from Lancaster St. West. The reduced parking rate is supported through the findings of the Transportation Impact Study and Parking Study (TIS) prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions is support of the complete application submissions. The TIS provides parking demand forecasts through the identification of an area specific auto ownership rate for apartment dwellers and proxy site data collected to provide an indicator of the parking demand for the type of development and demographics of residents. The reduced parking rate is reflective of the buildings location relative to existing and planned transit and the proposed implementation of a number of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures including consideration for: • Enhanced pedestrian and cycling connections provided to existing pedestrian, transit and cycling facilities and throughout the subject lands. The enhanced streetscape and all pedestrian connections are to be well lit and designed in compliance with AODA standards; • Providing short-term and long-term bike parking that exceeds the minimum requirement; • Unbundling parking through the implementation of a paid -parking operation to lease parking spaces separately from the cost to rent a unit; • Dedicating parking spaces for the use of a car sharing service; • Travel planning, education and promotion through the provision of welcome packages provided to residents 1 055C LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief outlining the available transit routes and active transportation options. A travel plan is intended to engage and educate residents on the available sustainable modes of travel and how to overcome perceived obstacles. General education of all modes of transportation is a key component to TDM success. Fire and Safety The arrangement of the parking area with two access from Lancaster Street West provides for adequate fire access to the subject lands. The buildings and parking area will be sufficiently lit with building and landscape lighting to ensure safety and security across the proposed development. Garbage On-site waste disposal will be provided by indoor collection areas within each building. The location of these areas will ensure convenient access for residents and commercial uses. A private waste disposal contract is anticipated to maintain and service the indoor collection areas. Landscaping The site plan will feature enhanced landscaping utilizing both hard and soft landscaping elements to soften the hardscapes of urban living. The design of the buildings ground floor will ensure a positive relationship with the public realm and an attractive and engaging streetscape along Lancaster Street West. All proposed materials will be high quality and tactile. Large sections of glazing will ensure activity and permeability on the street, creating an engaging visual experience. Page 74 of 387 SECTION 2 The proposed architectural treatment to the ground floor combined with the active uses of the building entry and the live/work units will support a pedestrian -friendly public realm along Lancaster Street West. Shadow Impacts A shadow study has been submitted with the application and is included in Appendix B. Given the buildings location on the south side of Lancaster Street West, there will be minimal shadowing impacts on the streetscape along Lancaster Street West. The shadow analysis illustrates the conditions by season and provides that during the summer solstice, the adjacent properties will be minimally impacted by shadows from the proposed buildings. During the spring and fall equinox the adjacent residential lots maintain at least 5 hours of direct sunlight. Wind Impacts The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory (BLWTL) was engaged to carry out an initial high-level assessment of the expected pedestrian winds around the subject lands. A summary of the report is provided in section 4.1 of this brief, the complete report is attached as Appendix A. BLWTL's assessment of proposed pedestrian level wind impacts provides the development is not expected to have a significant influence to winds on neighbouring properties. Wind mitigation measures will be recommended to provide refuge from wind speeds generated by westerly winds around the proposed towers. Additional detailed wind analysis will be undertaken at the final site plan stage. 1 1 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Transition and Compatibility Building B which flanks Lancaster Street has been designed at the lowest height at 12 storeys with a 6 storey podium and 3.0 meter stepback to the tower. Building E which is located at the north end of the site and is perpendicular to Lancaster Street has been designed to accommodate a 7 metre stepback from the 6 meter podium to the 18 storey tower. A total of 20 Live/ Work units are proposed within buildings B and E and units fronting Lancaster Street will have direct access via the public sidewalk and an internal walkway along the Lancaster Street frontage. Two taller apartment buildings at 26 and 34 storeys with 8 storey podiums are proposed at the rear of the property where grades drop, offering a transition of heights from the Lancaster Street West frontage to the rear of the property. The massing and placement of the proposed buildings creates a transition from the existing neighbourhoods to the planned higher density re -development of the lands. The proposed development includes architectural innovation and expression, and will provide a unique built form in the neighbourhood. The architectural design employed is proposed to be a contemporary style that will be complementary and a positive addition to the planned Lancaster Transit Corridor, and within an area designated Urban Corridor comprised of commercial retail, employment, institutional, multiple residential, and single detached residential dwelling uses. The proposed development will improve the streetscape and will also enhance the surrounding public realm. The proposed development is designed to compliment the low density residential community opposite the Lancaster Street West interface, while providing an intensification of the site. Page 75 of 387 ::i.. M! MEmIFEE 1 11 Conceptual Rendering (Subject to Change) View of Building A, B, and E as seen from Lancaster Street West. Building E is seen in the background. The above rendering illustrates the tower stepbacks along Lancaster and the podium base. Podiums surrounding the public realm reinforce the pedestrian scale. 13 LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 77 of 387 s.. Conceptual Rendering (Subject to Change) View of Building A, B, and E as seen from Lancaster Street West. Building E is seen in the background. The above rendering illustrates the tower stepbacks along Lancaster and the podium base. Podiums surrounding the public realm reinforce the pedestrian scale. 13 LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 77 of 387 Conceptual Rendering (Subject to Change) View of Building C, D, and E as seen from the northeast on the Bridgeport Road Bridge. The orientation and placement of the buildings will capitalize on the views of the Grand River. The above rendering illustrates the architectural projections designed to animate the facades and provide articulation of the development in the skyview. 14 LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief Page 78 of 387 SECTION 3 3.7 DESIGN RESPONSE TO CITY OF KITCHENER POLICIES AND GUIDELINES The City of Kitchener Official Plan and City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual provide urban design policies and directives relating to development in this area of the City. The following section of this Urban Design Brief reviews design policies and directives applicable to this Site and provides an analysis with regards to how the proposed design responds to the policies. 3.1.1 CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN (2014) The subject lands are located within the Built Up Area in the City of Kitchener. The subject lands are currently designated Mixed Use in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The subject lands are within a designated Urban Corridor as identified on the Urban Structure plan of the Official Plan. Section 11 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan contains Urban Design Policies. It is intended that the Urban Design Policies will provide guidance and direction as the City grows, develops and evolves. The following section provides a summary of how the proposal meets the relevant policies from Section 11 (Urban Design) of the current Official Plan: 11.C.1.11 Streetscape: The City will support the character of streets through the coordination of site, building and landscape design on and between individual sites with the design of the street. 15 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Design Response: New landscaping will be provided along the Lancaster Street West frontage. Access to the site is provided by two vehicular accesses from Lancaster Street West. Service access is internalized to ensure the streetscape is animated and not broken -up by entrances. The proposed building facades will be oriented to the street and activate the public realm which further enhances the streetscape. Active commercial uses are proposed at grade. 11.C.1.13, 14 & 15 Safety. The City will apply Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in the review of new developments, redevelopments and infrastructure projects to implement crime prevention strategies that will enhance the effective use of the space. Where feasible and in compliance with the other policies of this Plan, the City will ensure that the efficiency of emergency medical, fire, and police services be considered in the design of communities, neighbours and individual sites. Development applications will be reviewed to ensure that they are designed to accommodate fire prevention and timely emergency response. Design Response: General CPTED considerations are analyzed in section 3.2 of this Brief. The subject lands are located in a built up area within close proximity to emergency services. Emergency services vehicles will be able to access the development from the surrounding and internal road network and the buildings will be designed in compliance with the Ontario building Code including aspects related to fire prevention suppression. The proposed amenity areas, walkway, and parking is located in a highly visible location with sufficient eyes on the areas from surrounding buildings. 11.C.1.16 Universal Design: The City wi I I encoura ge new sites to be designed, existing sites to be redeveloped, the public realm Page 79 of 387 SECTION 3 and community infrastructure to be planned to be barrier -free and universally accessible by all citizens. In this regard, the City will enforce the Ontario building Code and other accessibility related legislation and regulations. Design Response: The development is designed with accessibility in mind and in compliance with the Ontario Building Code in this regard. Pedestrian walkways will incorporate appropriate ramping if needed. Barrier free spaces will be provided throughout the site. Cross -walks demarcated with different materials and sidewalks at crosswalks will have tactile warning surfaces. 11.C.1.22 Shade: The City will require the provision of shade, either natural or constructed, to provide protection from sun exposure, mitigate the urban heat island, and reduce energy demands provided it does not generate unacceptable adverse impacts. Design Response: Shade will be provided from architectural details incorporated into the building design, trees, and landscape features on site and in the surrounding area. The angled walls of the building will also provide shade at various times throughout the day to balconies, terraces, and entrances. Surface parking areas will be broken up to reduce amount of asphalt and provide as much landscaping as possible 11.C.1.30 Site Design: Policy 1 1.C.1.30 includes a number of factors to be considered through the Site Plan Control Process. Design Response: The various considerations included in Policy 11.C.1.30 will be addressed through the proposed design of the site, including improvements to the aesthetic quality of the site from the public realm; the provision of safe, comfortable and functional site circulation and lighting; and the provision of landscaping which 1655( LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief enhances the proposed buildings and the streetscape. 11.0.1.31 - 11.C.1.33 Building Design, Massing and Scale Design: The Official Plan contains three policies related to Building Design, Massing and Scale Design. These policies encourage redevelopment projects to create attractive streetscapes and to contribute to rich and vibrant urban places. These policies encourage attractive building forms, facades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings. For new development, the policies encourage development which is compatible with the neighbourhood context and contributes to neighbourhood character, particularity if located within close proximity of a recognized cultural heritage resource. Architectural innovation and expression is also encouraged. Design Response: The proposed development includes architectural innovation and expression, and will provide a unique built form in the neighbourhood. The architectural design employed is proposed to be a contemporary style that will be complementary and a positive addition to the planned Lancaster Transit Corridor, and an area designated Urban Corridor comprised of commercial retail, employment, institutional, multiple residential, and single detached residential dwelling uses. The proposed development will improve the streetscape and will also enhance the surrounding public realm. The proposed development is designed to compliment the low density residential building designs adjacent in Lancaster Street West interface, while providing an intensification of the site. The massing of the buildings is designed to accommodate the change in grade across the subject lands and provide a transition in height to maintain compatibility adjacent to surrounding land uses. Page 80 of 387 SECTION 3 3.1.2 CITY OF KITCHENER URBAN DESIGN MANUAL -2019 In September 2019 Council for the City of Kitchener approved a new Urban Design Manual which contains City- wide design guidelines as well as more specific guidelines that apply to various types of development and/or various locations within the City. The Urban Design Manual (UDM) consists of three parts. Part A contains guidelines for various land uses and built forms. Part B: Design Briefs contains supplementary guidelines completed through other studies. There are no Part B guidelines applicable to the subject site. Part C contains design standards. Applicable sections were reviewed during preparation of the development proposal. Applicable guidelines from Part A are to be referenced in an Urban Design Report accompanying a Development Application, where required. For the purpose of this Brief we have reviewed the most relevant sections of the Design Manual: City-wide Design; Nodes & Corridors; and Design for Tall Buildings. Section 9. Design for To// Buildings is most a ppl ica ble to the proposed development and the guidelines are reviewed in their entirety below. Section 1: City-wide Guidelines and Section 6: Nodes & Corridors area Iso applicable, however, there are a number of overlapping directives and guidelines from Section 9: Design for To// Buildings. CITY-WIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES The purpose of the City -Wide Design section of the Urban Design Manual is to set forth the universal design expectations which apply to all of Kitchener. This Section includes urban design objectives that are relevant to all geographies and building typologies and is divided into two sections: Community Design and Site Design. For the purpose of this brief we have focused on the Site Design guidelines which includes guidelines related to Built Form, Shared Spaces and Site Function with sub -categories within each of these two sections. The Concept Site Plan design has appropriately considered the Built Form (Massing) guidelines as follows: The proposed development focuses height and mass where it provides the best public realm opportunities while minimizing impacts on surrounding lands. As part of the overall development scheme, the tallest buildings are proposed to be located along the rear eastern edge of the property. Building A and Towers B and E, located along Lancaster have the lowest proposed heights of the development. 17 551: LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 81 of 387 - �` 1 • Proposed buildings will be located to allow for a substantial All building elevations will be designed to provide public realm opportunity. transparency, architectural continuity and visual interest. • Massing techniques will be incorporated into each building No blank walls will be proposed. As a result of proposed including projections, recesses, variation in colour, materials windows and balconies there will be sufficient natural and texture, all of which help to reduce and diversify the surveillance onto surrounding public streets and future massing of each building. proposed shared spaces. • The buildings will be designed as slender towers with a The Concept Site Plan design has also considered the Built Form defined podium to enhance the public realm along (Materials & Uses) guidelines as follows (it is noted that detailed surrounding public streets. design will be further refined through the site plan process • The overall site is designed to create visual interest and to required for each phase of development. reinforce a human scale. This will be done through the 0 All proposed buildings feature a contemporary design, creation of podium units along Lancaster Street West with meaning the buildings will be designed with a present-day individual at -grade entrances and a stepback above the building style, with varied architectural details, materials, podium base. Podium units have also been incorporated colours and textures. into buildings C and D. Active uses (including residential and commercial units • Primary building entrances will be located visible from and directly accessible from the street) will be proposed on the directly accessible from the public street. ground floor along the Lancaster Street West facing 18 551 LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief Page 82 of 387 SECTION 3 elevations. • A range of unit types and sizes will be proposed. • The design of buildings provides for pedestrian weather protection including covered building entrances. The Concept Site Plan design has considered the Shared Spaces (Landscaping and Lighting) as follows (it is noted that detailed landscape plans will be required for each phase of development). • Vegetation will be selected with regard to their tolerance to urban conditions including road salt and drought. • Landscape and hardscape elements will be designed to provide colour, having regard for seasonal changes. • Landscape areas will be provided between the buildings and the sidewalk. Where trees will be provided within landscaped areas, adequate soil volumes will be proposed. • Lighting will be designed according to City standards and will be designed to minimize glare and light spilling onto surrounding areas. • Lighting will be designed appropriate to the street character with a focus on pedestrian areas, including building entrances. • Energy-efficient lamps will be used and over lighting will be avoided. The following describes the development proposal relative to the Site Function (Vehicular Access & Parking and Driveway guidelines: • The site is designed with reductions in parking and incorporation of TDM measures to reduce the demand of 19 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief private automobiles • Parking is provided in the form of surface parking as well as located underground or within building podiums. • Conveniently accessible and easily visible locations will be proposed for bicycle parking. This includes secure indoor bicycle parking. • The design within the underground parking structure will avoid the creation of entrapment areas and dead end parking aisles. • The two driveway accesses to the proposed development are located off of Lancaster Street West and provide direct access from the street to the surface parking area and underground parking structure entrances. • Proposed driveways do not conflict with transit stop locations. TALL BUILDING DESIGN GUIDELINES The Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings provides a set of targets and design elements that generally represent good design practice when dealing with tall buildings. However, the guidelines also recognizes that there is no "one -size -fits -all" set of standards and good design for tall buildings must be approached as a "best -fit" analysis and solution. The guidelines state that "it is the City's intention to use these guidelines to generate constructive discussion and provide a framework against which to consider and test individual site restrictions, broader contexts, and design aspirations. The City wants to encourage creative solutions to problems and deliver innovation Page 83 of 387 SECTION 3 and design excellence. Therefore the expectation is not for every project to meet every guideline in all cases. A project may fall short (within reason) of a guideline if it compensates by exceeding targets for other (related) guidelines, or if the project demonstrates justifiable design solutions to achieve a guideline's intention through other means. The City also recognizes that in some cases, site-specific considerations may create conditions that cannot be anticipated within design guidelines, with proper justification, projects will be examined based on how well they are designed for these conditions, and not solely on which specific guidelines they are not able to meet. The Tall Building Design Guidelines should not be read in isolation of other in effect policies, regulations or design guidelines." With this in mind, the following reviews the set targets and design elements as defined in the guidelines and identifies where the proposed design addresses those targets and the justification for the proposed design solution. Text in italics is a copy of the guideline or target. Built Form Base Design A tall building's base includes the ground floor and any additional floors with a direct relationship to the streetscape and public realm. Design the base to prioritize pedestrian utility, comfort and safety. Bases should feature a high percentage of transparency. Bases should maximize connectivity and permeability at ground level, creating and reinforcing pedestrian & cycling connections. Fully integrate bases into the public realm. Avoid conditions such as 'tower in the park' or 'fortress' design. • The proposal will have a defined a base that is directly adjacent to the street with minimal setback. The proposed lobby and live -work units in building B will front directly onto Lancaster Street West, providing active uses and a 20 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief high degree of transparency to support pedestrian comfort and safety. The base will provide for a human -scaled interface with the streetscape and will provide a transitional space from the outside to inside. Bases should not exceed 70 metres in overall building length. Buildings longer than 70m should demonstrate enhanced streetscaping, materials and building articulation. Provide visual variety through well -articulated massing and high quality materials. • The building bases proposed will be less than 70 metres in length. Enhanced streetscaping, material selections, and projections will help to minimize any concerns of a long monotonous facade. Provide protection from harsh weather. • Canopies, awnings, and architectural projections will be utilized over primary buildings entrances throughout the proposed development. Provide balconies for residential units along street -facing elevations. Consider outdoor amenity spaces for other uses along street facing elevations. • Balconies will be proposed for all residential units facing out to Lancaster Street West. Where it is not feasible to integrate 'back of house' activities underground or within the building mass, design these spaces using high-quality architectural elements and landscape design to screen these activities from public view and to limit unwanted activity. • Utilities, parking and servicing will all be located away from the Lancaster Street West interface and screened from the public realm through the building placement and site design. Services will be integrated into the overall building and landscape design to mitigate negative impacts on the Page 84 of 387 SECTION 3 facade and subject lands. Ground Floor The lower 5m of a base forms the most immediate relationship of a building to the public realm and should be designed in all cases with high quality materials, highly articulated, engaging and visually expressive architectural features and human scaled massing. 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. Where a shorter ground floor height is proposed, the lower 5m (minimum) of the building is still to be considered critical to the public realm even if it includes part or all of the second storey. Design the ground floor to be comprehensively integrated with the surrounding streetscape and landscape to achieve a high quality pedestrian environment. • The ground floor of the building is designed to ensure a positive relationship with the public realm and attractive and engaging streetscape along Lancaster Street West. The large floor -to -ceiling height of 5m will create a portion that is scaled to the street and overall building. All proposed materials will be high quality and tactile. Large sections of 21 LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief glazing will ensure activity and permeability on the street, creating an engaging visual experience. Tower -Size and Proportion A Tower is the 'middle' component of a tall building, connecting the base to the top and housing the building's primary function. Towers are highly visible elements of the urban environment and must meet Kitchener's highest standards for design excellence. Compact Point towers are preferred for intensification areas and smaller sites, particularly within multi -tower proposals. The appropriateness of larger or slab -like forms will partially be a function of site size, shape and orientation, and whether a large tower can achieve good separation and compatibility while mitigating unwanted impacts. Height is also an important factor when determining an appropriate tower Size. • The proposed slender slab design of the buildings is the most optimum design approach for the subject lands given the subject lands' geometry and context. Utilizing this form of development enables the design to maximize on the potential vistas and view corridors of the Grand River and open space network. • The slab design allows building B to function like a Mid -rise Building along the Lancaster streetscape, filling the spaces between landmarks, and bridging lower density areas to high-density transit areas. Mitigate the actual and perceived massing impacts of towers by breaking up their mass both horizontally and vertically, through the creative incorporation of changes in materials, balcony and floorplate design, architectural features and uniVamenity locations. Large Point Towers and Large Slabs must demonstrate significant design measures to reduce the visual impact of their mass. • The mass of the building is articulated and mitigated Page 85 of 387 SECTION 3 1� 11 11 II -P71 through the creative horizontal and vertical offset placement of windows and balconies. There are many factors shaping tower design. These guidelines can help determine at the schematic design stage what tower form is most appropriate on a given site. A similar GFA can result in different tower sizes depending on site size, location, costs, parking requirements etc. In order to provide the greatest variety of unit types, sizes and tenures, the City of Kitchener has not put a limit on floorplate size, given the other guidelines can be met. • The proposed slender floorplate of the buildings optimizes the floor space ratio available for the subject lands while minimizing adverse impacts on adjacent lands. Tower- Relative Height Relative Height, or a tower's height when compared to neighbouring towers or existing or planned surrounding context, is an important factor in tall building design. For towers adjacent to lower -rise surrounding areas the towers must demonstrate compatibility with their surroundings and transition in height and scale through 22 55C LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief TINConceptual Rendering (Subject to Change) T~ appropriate design of the project's built form. If a site does not allow for sensitive transition between a tower and lower -rise neighbourhoods it may not be suitable for a tall building. • The proposal recognizes that the tallest towers and highest density developments will be immediately adjacent transit corridors, and development should transition down from the designated corridor to lower density residential areas. The design solution of employing the tallest buildings at the rear of the subject lands provides the greatest amount of separation possible from the single family homes adjacent to the subject lands on the Lancaster Street West interface. Overlook is minimized by facing the residential units towards the street where possible and orienting the massing of the towers to provide maximum building separation. Impacts of wind and shadowing will be mitigated through the site and building design such that no negative impacts are anticipated from the proposed development on adjacent residential land uses. Page 86 of 387 SECTION 3 Separation Separation refers to the physical and perceived space between a tower and its surroundings. Achieving adequate separation requires a unified design approach related to Physical Separation and Tower Overlook. Physical Separation is the measured setback in metres from G tall building tower's faces to its side and rear property lines, or to the centre line of on abutting lane, trail or easement. • The proposed separation between building B and the centerline of Lancaster Street West meets the separation guidelines and is compatible with adjacent built forms as Lancaster Street West has a planned right of way width of 26.213 metres. The separation from building B to the existing dwellings on the opposite side of the Lancaster Street West interface will mitigate shadow impacts. • The proposed separation between building C and the adjacent lands to the south is below the recommended separation distance. The lands south of the subject property are zoned for employment use and as such, the intent of the physical separation guidelines (to not preclude future development) can be maintained. As such the reduced separation is justified and meets the intent of the guidelines as the required zoning setbacks will be maintained and the physical separation will not impose additional constraints on the development ability of adjacent lands to the south. • The built form and placement of balconies and other architectural features provides for a compatible transition from building C to the adjacent lands south of the subject lands. • The distance proposed from the rear of buildings C, D, and E to the eastern property line adjacent the Walter Bean Trail and open space lands is proposed less than the recommendations. The proposed rear lot line separation aligns with the intent of the guidelines as the adjacent 23 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 87 of 387 RECOMMENDED PHYSICAL SEPARATION (BASED ON GUIDELINE CALCULATIONS) Tower B Recommended Physical Seperation / Proportion Combined Recommended Physical Seperation Provided Seperation % Compliance Height Length 42.60 67.70 HxL 200 14 42 3'08 29.38 North -Tower E 22.80 North -Tower E 78% 34.65 East -Tower D 24.50 I East -Tower D 23.12 South - Tower A 22.40 South - Tower A 71% 97% Width 22.00 LJW Area 1489.44 14.42 lWest - Lancaster street West 16.11 'West - Lancaster Street West 112% Tower C Recommended Physical Seperation J Proportion Combined Recommended Physical Seperation Provided Seperation % Compliance Height 106.90 HxL 200 26.08 46.31 North -Tower D 31.60 North -Tower D 68% Length 48.80 26.08 East - Property Line 4.25 East - Property Line 16% Width 22 -SO LJW 2,17 26.08 'South - Property Line 6.00 south - Property Line 23% Area 1098.00 34.78 West - Tower A 24.30 1 West - Tower A 70% Tower D Recommended Physical Seperation / Proportion Combined Recommended Physical Seperation Provided Seperation % Compliance Height 82.90 HxL 200 20.23 35.19 North - Tower E 28.64 North - Tower E 81% Length 48.80 20.23 East - Property line 5.26 East - Property Line ISouth 26% Width 22.00 L/W 222 46.31 South - Tower C 34.65 West - Tower B 31.60 - Tower C 24.50 ' West - Tower B 68% 71% Area 1673.60 Tower E Recommended Physical Seperation f Proportion Combined Recommended Physical Seperation Provided Seperation % Compliance Height 58.20 HxL 200 14.96 14.96 North - Property Line 7.00 North - Property Line 47% Length 51.40 14.96 JEast - Property line 35.19 South - Tower D 12.60 JEast - Property Line 28.60 South -Tower D 84% 81% Width 22.00 Lf W 2.34 Area 1130.80 14.96 lWest - Lancaster Street West 20.11 lWest - Lancaster Street West 134% 23 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 87 of 387 SECTION 3 lands are zoned open space and do not permit development. As such, the proposed development of the subject lands will not preclude adjacent lands from future development. Shadow impacts on adjacent open space lands are mitigated through building orientation and massing. PROVIDED PHYSICAL SEPARATION • The proposed separation between building E and the centerline of Lancaster Street West meets the separation recommendations. • The proposed separation between building E and the adjacent residential dwelling to the north is below the recommended separation distance. The size of the adjacent parcel precludes the ability of the land to support a tall building. As such the reduced separation is justified and meets the intent of the guidelines as the required zoning setbacks will be maintained and the physical separation will not impose additional constraints on the development ability of adjacent lands. • The proposed built form including the placement of balconies and other architectural features as well as enhanced sideyard landscaping will provide for a compatible transition from building E to the existing single detached dwelling to the north. 24550 LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 88 of 387 '..,t TETE p "+ SUITE 24550 LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 88 of 387 SECTION 3 • As illustrated in the Shadow Study, the proposal provides sufficient separation to mitigate adverse shadow impacts on adjacent land uses. Overlook Overlook is the overlap that exists between two neighbouring towers. Acceptable maximum overlook is determined based on the physical separation distance calculation. Where physical separation is calculated greater than 14 metres, the guidelines provide a maximum recommended overlook of 30%. • The following table summarizes the percentage of overlook proposed between the towers on site. OVERLOOK (CONCEPT SITE PLAN) • The overlook analysis attached as Appendix C provides a detailed analysis of the proposed development and overlook considerations. The proposed development will mitigate the impacts of overlook through privacy screening as well as the strategic placement of windows and balconies. Wind and shadow impacts will not negatively impact adjacent land uses. 25 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Placement Placement refers to a tower's Position and Orientation on its site relative to other towers, its base, its surrounding context and open spaces. Placement should also factor in Tower Size, Separation, Relative Height and Overlook as part of a comprehensive tall building design. Good Placement helps to minimize undesirable impacts on amenity spaces and the public realm. Diverse Placement amongst neighbouring and nearby towers prevents the creation of unwanted canyon effects and helps to avoid the creation of a homogeneous or visually lifeless skyline. Good Placement is highly dependent on each site's specific context and should be evaluated as achieving a 'best fit' on a site -by -site basis. Proper placement also maximizes compatibility within a tower's greater urban context, including surrounding neighbourhoods and the Kitchener skyline. A tower should step back from its base a minimum of 3m along any street - facing elevation, except where zoning may require otherwise. • Buildings B and E will be placed directly adjacent to Lancaster Street West and will help to define an urban street wall which is currently lacking along this important gateway stretch of Lancaster Street West. Conceptual Rendering (Subject to Change) Page 89 of 387 Overlook to B Overlook to C Overlook to D Overlook to E Tower B - 12% 33% 79% Tower C 37% - 45% 0% Tower D 100% 45% - 23% Tower E 31% 0% 22% - • The overlook analysis attached as Appendix C provides a detailed analysis of the proposed development and overlook considerations. The proposed development will mitigate the impacts of overlook through privacy screening as well as the strategic placement of windows and balconies. Wind and shadow impacts will not negatively impact adjacent land uses. 25 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Placement Placement refers to a tower's Position and Orientation on its site relative to other towers, its base, its surrounding context and open spaces. Placement should also factor in Tower Size, Separation, Relative Height and Overlook as part of a comprehensive tall building design. Good Placement helps to minimize undesirable impacts on amenity spaces and the public realm. Diverse Placement amongst neighbouring and nearby towers prevents the creation of unwanted canyon effects and helps to avoid the creation of a homogeneous or visually lifeless skyline. Good Placement is highly dependent on each site's specific context and should be evaluated as achieving a 'best fit' on a site -by -site basis. Proper placement also maximizes compatibility within a tower's greater urban context, including surrounding neighbourhoods and the Kitchener skyline. A tower should step back from its base a minimum of 3m along any street - facing elevation, except where zoning may require otherwise. • Buildings B and E will be placed directly adjacent to Lancaster Street West and will help to define an urban street wall which is currently lacking along this important gateway stretch of Lancaster Street West. Conceptual Rendering (Subject to Change) Page 89 of 387 SECTION 3 Top Design A well designed top integrates mechanical and occupied/ programmed penthouses, amenity spaces, building signage and telecommunications equipment as part of a coherent architectural expression that formally resolves the tower design and completes the visual, architectural and urban form of the project as a whole. A tower top includes any rooftop elements above the highest occupied floor, but can also incorporate an appropriate number of upper-level tower floors to provide quality material and massing transitions, additional stepbacks, further articulation to the floor plate and other design elements which add to the expression of the building and its perception from the public realm. • The top of the proposed buildings will be proposed to be defined by a mechanical penthouse that is offset from center and steps back from the main building form. It will be clad with the materials used within the base and tower, creating a defined and grounding top shape for the building. Streets and Open Space Safety Design tall buildings to provide natural surveillance by employing high percentages of glazing, active uses at ground level, and windows and balconies with views onto the public realm, particularly along Base storeys. Create a connected pedestrian environment by avoiding physical/visual barriers and potential entrapment areas (dead -ends, hidden and/or fenced in areas). Back of house areas should be well -lit. Use lighting and landscaping to maximize safety and comfort. • The building is designed to provide natural surveillance through large amounts of glazing at grade, active uses at grade, and balconies reaching out into the public realm. 26 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief The pedestrian environment will be connected and well -lit along all sides of the building. Public and Private Open Spaces Public and Private Open Spaces are communal areas which contribute to the quality and character of the environment in and around a tall building. They facilitate physical, recreational and social activity, incorporate green and landscaped areas into urban life and provide valuable uses for building occupants and the public. Tall building development requires a mixture of both private and public open spaces. The location, type, size and intended use of open spaces on a tall building site can vary depending on community need, building uses and site characteristics. Publicly accessible open spaces can be large or small, and should be flexible in their design to adapt to various programming opportunities and seasonal conditions. • Private and common amenity areas will be proposed to accommodate passive recreational activities and seating for residents. Open spaces should prioritize pedestrian comfort and safety, universal accessibility, and high standards for design. Provide open spaces with weather protection while preserving access to sunlight and air movement. Connect new open spaces to existing parks, pedestrian connections and natural areas. Create different types and sizes of parks and open spaces to support district, neighbourhood and local activities that contribute to placemaking and a connected public realm. • Each ground floor live/work unit will feature an exclusive use terrace. Each residential unit will feature an exclusive use balcony and or terrace. Additional amenity space will be provided through roof top terraces provided on the proposed building podiums. At grade amenity area will also be provided. Page 90 of 387 SECTION 3 Create mid -block connections where appropriate to facilitate pedestrian movement. Include amenity spaces for occupants. These should be communal spaces for outdoor activity such as rooftop terraces, courtyards, or urban green spaces. Where non-commercial ground floor units are present, define the threshold between private residential uses at grade and the public realm through measures such as streetscaping, landscaping and elevation changes. • The Lancaster Street West public/private realm interface will be defined utilizing landscaping elements and features to delineate the private ground floor terraces and sidewalk connections to Lancaster Street West. • Two mid -block connections are proposed on either side of building B. The southern connection to the subject lands proposes to utilize the access off of the former unopened road allowance of Lang Crescent. Public Realm The Public Realm connects a tall building to its greater urban environment and includes pedestrian connections and open spaces. Good public realm design integrates the building successfully into the local urban fabric. Design the public realm to be Human -Scaled, Varied, Visually Appealing and Landscaped. Provide high-quality, sustainable streetscape and landscape design by: => Protecting existing natural features and providing sufficient soil depth, volume and growing medium for new trees; => Providing unobstructed, accessible and high quality pedestrian pathways and seating areas,- => reas;=> Providing energy efficient, pedestrian -scaled lighting. => Providing pedestrian -oriented street furnishings, public art, and interactive features. => Design streetscapes to satisfy the needs of a diverse range of users by providing access, safety, comfort, mobility, and leisure 27 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief for people of all ages and abilities. => Design streetscapes to optimize the pedestrian experience for any time of day or night, local or seasonal weather conditions, nearby activities and events, and other immediate contextual considerations. => Ensure weather protection elements, such as overhangs and canopies, are well -integrated into the building design, detailed and scaled to support the streetscape, and positioned to maximize function and pedestrian comfort. • The proposal will provide an enhanced streetscape design. The proposed active uses on the ground floor will encourage animation of the public realm and facilitate direct pedestrian access to the uses. The materials and fixtures of the enhanced landscape design will further provide a high-quality streetscape. Mid -Block Connections On larger sites, use existing or create new publicly accessible mid - block pedestrian connections. • Two mid -block connections will be proposed on either side of building B. The southern connection to the subject lands proposes to utilize the access off of the former unopened road allowance of Lang Crescent. Views and Skylines Tall buildings should protect, enhance and create view corridors and vistas. When a tall building frames on important view from the public realm, ensure that the view is maintained, and where possible, enhanced. • The proposed building will help to define a street wall for Lancaster Street West and create an enhanced view corridor into the Bridgeport West area. • The existing view corridor towards the Grand River will be Page 91 of 387 SECTION 3 enhanced through the development of the subject lands. The built form and design will be inspired by the opportunity to celebrate the views and vistas from the subject lands to both natural and cultural heritage features within the surrounding area. Compatibility Scale and Transition Proper compatibility creates harmonious relationships between a tall building and its surroundings. Complement adjacent built form through compatible height, scale, massing, and materials. Sensitively transition to surrounding urban contexts, accounting for both the existing context and the planned vision for an area. Implement Setbacks (from property lines) and Stepbacks (from the edge of the base to upper-level base storeys, the tower, and top features). To// buildings should not interrupt or impose upon on existing or planned neighbourhood character or the public realm. • Ground floor commercial uses will be proposed in the central tower identified as building B, oriented parallel to Lancaster Street West. Three taller apartment building heights are proposed. • The tallest towers identified as buildings C, D and E are oriented to the rear of the property, and will be well setback from Lancaster Street West as well as other surrounding land uses. Building E is oriented parallel to Lancaster Street West, the stepback of the proposed tower is reflective of the building height proposed. • The massing and placement of the proposed buildings, the placement of windows, balconies and patios, and enhanced landscaping will create a transition from these existing neighbourhoods to the planned higher density re- development of the lands. 28 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Implement design cues (materials, architectural features, colours, rhythms) from good surrounding built form. Tall buildings should be contemporary and not replicate existing or historical architectural styles. • The proposed tall buildings will be a contemporary style that will create a juxtaposition and interest adjacent to the older, century homes. • The proposed development is designed to compliment the low density residential building designs adjacent in Lancaster Street West interface, while providing an intensification of the site. All tall buildings should have a human -scaled relationship to the public realm. • The proposed buildings have provided a human -scaled first floor design that will integrate well with the public realm. In areas with existing or planned tall and/or mid -rise buildings, Relative Height, Separation, Overlook, creative tower Orientation, compact floor plate size and point -tower form should all be considered as factors contributing to good compatible design. It is important to respond to a new tall building's place within the greater context of the city as a whole. To// buildings create substantial viewsheds, are visually prominent, occupy key locations, are often visible and perceivable from significant distances and contribute to a city's skyline. Where the nature, size, shape or context of a parcel makes achieving good separation and compatibility impractical or impossible, that site may not be suitable for a tall building. • The proposal is consistent with the planned vision for this area as defined in Official Plan. The proposal will be integrated well with the existing context while providing densities supportive of planned transit on the Lancaster Transit Corridor. The proposal will not cause any issues with future new buildings related to height, separation, or Page 92 of 387 SECTION 3 overlook. The proposed buildings will help to establish a more urban, transit supportive environment along Lancaster Street West, creating a strong gateway to the Bridgeport West community and designated urban corridor. Heritage Locate and design tall buildings to respect and complement the scale, character, form and siting of on-site and surrounding cultural heritage resources. Conserve and integrate built heritage resources into tall building developments in a manner that conforms to heritage conservation policies, principles, standards and guidelines. • The lands municipally addressed as 544-546 Lancaster Street West contain two existing residential dwellings. Although the property is not 'listed' or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the existing residential dwellings have been identified by the City of Kitchener as having potential cultural value. • The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by MHBC Planning in support of the complete application provides the property located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West is not considered a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. • The current site plan concept proposes to relocate and preserve the existing identified cultural heritage dwellings to a location within close proximity to the site. A strong focus on visibility of the front elevations will ensure the integrity and attributes of the dwellings are maintained and conserved. The preparation of the Heritage Impact Assessment will also serve in documenting the history of the property. Sustainability Tall buildings help shape their environment for decades to come. 29 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Design for flexibility in anticipation of future change through unit type variety, size and adaptability to new uses. • The proposed commercial units will be designed to provide for adaptability and change over time. Like many of the single family homes found along Lancaster Street West today that are now used for commercial/retail purposes, these Live/Work units have the floor space and ceiling heights to be used for commercial/retail uses now and in the future. Employ high quality design, materials and construction practices that can withstand changing climate conditions and which encourage building longevity. Use natural and passive techniques for lighting, ventilation, summer cooling and winter heating. Utilize building envelope design and materials that limit thermal bridging and heat loss. • The proposed building recognizes our changing climate and support a more sustainable form of living. The building materials and construction will be of a high quality to ensure the building is sound and will have a long usable life. Natural and passive means for lighting, venting, and heating will be considered in the buildings' design with large operable windows and surrounding ambient heating. The proposed building envelope designs will limit thermal bridging and heat loss. High efficiency LED lighting will be used throughout the interior and exterior of the building. A green roof can help minimize surface runoff, reduce urban heat island effect, provide noise insulation, improve local air quality, and contribute to the aesthetic of rooftop amenity space. Provide light- coloured and/or green roofs to reduce solar heat absorption and energy demand. • A green roof is being considered as part of the resident's Page 93 of 387 SECTION 3 roof top amenity, as is a light -colour roof membrane. Provide low impact stormwater management techniques where possible, including porous paving materials, landscaped areas, and vegetative swales. Provide water efficient and drought resistant landscaping by using native planting materials and low impact development practices. Explore opportunities for water collection and reuse. • The landscaping elements being considered for the development will be drought resistant, including those anticipated as part of the green roof. • Hardscape design is anticipated due to the constrained areas for planting available. • Infiltration galleries designed under the surface parking will provide the opportunity for water collection and surface water recharge. Daytime bird strikes generally occur from ground level to tree top level, while migratory birds are attracted at night to tall structures that are excessively lit. Design tall buildings to minimize bird collisions with glass. Avoid untreated reflective glass or clear glass that reflects trees and sky. Glass should have visual markers and any reflection should be muted within the first 12 metres of building height. • Bird friendly design treatments will be incorporated into the detailed building design for glazing below 12 meters. Minimize light pollution through the use of dark sky/nighttime friendly compliant practices. Locate and manage lighting to reduce reflections that may cause confusion for migratory birds. • The proposed site lighting will be designed to mitigate light pollution created from the development. Provide on-site facilities for handling, storing and separating recyclable and solid waste. Consider facilities for the separation and 30 55( LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief collection of organic waste. • On-site waste and recycling storage facilities will be proposed in the form of indoor waste collection areas in each building, serviced by private contract. Microclimate refers to the environmental impacts created by a tall building. Kitchener features hot, humid summers and cold, drywinters. The city has prevailing westerly winds, and the angle of the sun's path and its intensity varies significantly throughout the year. The Kitchener street network and parcel fabric is on organic grid, creating many different orientations for buildings. Itis important to design with these varied conditions in mind and to understand the microclimatic effects created by tall buildings. This includes sunlighVshadowing, heat island effects, wind conditions and snow disposition as well as cumulative effects created by multiple adjacent structures. Provide both a sun/shadow analysis and a wind study to demonstrate how a proposed development is designed to mitigate unwanted microclimatic impacts. Design a built form that provides sunlight access to the public realm during the winter months, shaded areas for the summer months, and comfortable, safe wind conditions year round. • The proposed development has consideration for shadow impacts and wind conditions and the buildings' placement, orientation, and design will mitigate the adverse effects of these conditions. • The required shadow analysis is attached as Appendix B. • The required wind study is attached as Appendix A. Maintain daily access to at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight to nearby sidewalks and open spaces under equinox conditions, beginning with sidewalks located on the opposite site of adjacent ROWS. • The shadow analysis attached as Appendix B demonstrates Page 94 of 387 SECTION 3 the proposed development will maintain at least 5 hours of direct sunlight to adjacent lands, sidewalks, and open spaces. Skyview is the amount of sky that can be seen from public open spaces, above and between buildings. Utilize the design tools presented in this document to preserve access to skyview. • A number of public open spaces are within proximity of the subject lands. Most notably is the Grand River located just east of the subject lands separated by the Walter Bean public use trail. The proposed development will be visible from public open spaces. The massing and placement of the proposed development will ensure access to skyview is preserved. In summary, the Concept Site Plan was prepared with consideration of the City's Tall Building Guidelines and the proposed redevelopment of this site can generally meet the intent of the guidelines through its placement of towers with appropriate separation distances, regulation of floor plate size, minimization of overlook, consideration of shadow and wind impacts. Planning Staff will continue to apply these guidelines, as well as other policy direction, throughout the site plan review processes for this site. Changes to the ultimate building footprints and orientation may evolve through the site plan process but the general location of towers is intended to remain consistent with the Concept Site Plan. 31 55( LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief Page 95 of 387 SECTION 3 3.2CPTED CONSIDERATIONS The proposed development is designed with consideration of the basic concepts of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). NATURAL SURVEILLANCE Natural surveillance occurs by designing the placement of physical features, activities and people in such a way as to maximize visibility and foster positive social interaction among legitimate users of private and public space. It is directed at keeping intruders under observation based on the theory that a person inclined to engage in criminality will be less likely to act on their impulse if he or she can be seen. The proposed development achieves natural surveillance by: • Maximizing the number of "eyes" watching the site by creating a visual connection and maintaining unobstructed views from within the building to the exterior, as well as, between the street, the sidewalk, and the building. • Proposing spaces and uses that are capable of generating activity (amenity area, unit patios and balconies). • Placing windows along all sides of the building that overlook landscaped areas, public sidewalk and parking areas. • Designing lighting plans that avoid creating blind spots and ensuring potential problem areas will be well lit (pedestrian walkways, stairs/ramps, entrances/exits, parking areas, recycling areas, etc.). 32 55( LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief ACCESS CONTROL Access control is achieved by clearly differentiating between public space and private space. The principal of access control is directed at decreasing crime opportunity. The overall goal with this CPTED principle is not necessarily to keep intruders out, but to direct the flow of people while decreasing the opportunity for crime. The proposed development achieves access control by: • Providing clearly identifiable, points of entry to each building/dwelling unit. • Creating well-defined site entrances for vehicular and pedestrian access TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT Territorial Reinforcement is the intentional design of the site to create a "border" between private and public property. These measures are not meant to prevent anyone from physically entering, but to create a feeling of territoriality and send a message to offenders that the property belongs to someone. The proposed development achieves the principle of territorial reinforcement by: • Clearly delineating private from public property via: pavement treatments, entry treatments, landscaping, signage, etc. • Delineating desired pedestrian and vehicular circulation. MAINTENANCE The other key aspect of CPTED is property maintenance; on the premise that good maintenance practices and upkeep send the message that the property is cared for on a regular basis. Following construction of the development, management by a condominium corporation or property management company will ensure that the buildings and grounds will be well maintained. Page 96 of 387 SECTION 4 4.7 MICROCLIMATE IMPACTS In support of the proposed re -development of the subject lands a pedestrian wind study and shadow study have been completed. The findings of these studies are summarized as follows: WIND STUDY A Pedestrian Level Wind Preliminary Impact Assessment (March 26, 2021) was prepared by BLWTL in support of the original concept plan and as part of the complete planning applications. An updated Pedestrian Level Wind Preliminary Impact Assessment, dated March 30, 2023, has been prepared by BLWTL in support of the revised site design and concept plan. The March 30, 2023 BLWTL report is attached as Appendix A. The wind study's qualitative assessment is made in context of the proposed buildings configuration in relationship with existing surroundings and provides a high-level description of potential wind conditions related to pedestrian comfort, identifies areas of accelerated flows, and presents conceptual mitigation strategies. A brief summary of the Wind Study's conclusions are provided below. While the development is not expected to have a significant influence to winds on most neighbouring properties, (i.e. the comfort categorization of adjacent properties is expected to remain similar to that for the existing configuration), areas to the east of Building C can experience the effects of downwash from Building C. The main public street level areas along Lancaster Street are expected to experience wind conditions consistent with the 33 551: LANCASTER INC.// Urban Design Brief intended usage during summer months; this includes the entrances and sidewalks. During the winter months, the proposed street line tree planting is an important feature to mitigate downwash effects and maintain comfort levels suited for the intended usage. Specific entries and areas throughout the development site have been identified in the wind assessment that are expected to benefit from some modest amounts of mitigation. The spacing between Buildings B and E, Buildings A and C, and Buildings A and B is such that accelerated flows that are generated can impact local comfort without effective mitigation. The following pages provide examples of wind mitigation measures that can improve wind conditions at grade adjacent to the public realm and near building entrances, as well as within above grade podium amenity spaces. These mitigation measures are to be considered in the detailed landscape and building designs completed as part of the site plan approval process. It is noted the qualitative results of the wind assessment are not to replace a detailed quantitative study(s) required for future planning stages of the development. Future wind tunnel testing will be critical to evaluate winds in some of the complex flow areas and understanding of the downstream extent of these winds around the taller buildings. It is proposed that additional quantitative wind study(s) are completed in support of future site plan approvals such that detailed facade and landscape designs can be considered in the analysis. Page 97 of 387 SECTION 4 [WIND CONTROL MEASURES -AT GRADE BUILDING ENTRACES AND PUBLIC REALM INTERFACE 3455" LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief Page 98 of 387 _ �r .. F \ s a ..4.T=.— ■■ y r a FF Fity SECTION 4 SHADOW STUDY The shadow impact analysis has been prepared to better understand the impact of the proposed development and to demonstrate negative impacts on surrounding land uses is mitigated. The shadow study diagrams are included as Appendix B. Overall the result of the proposed development is that all adjacent properties and public streetscapes will continue to experience full sun for at least two consecutive time periods. March/September 21: During the spring and fall months shadow impacts on adjacent lands is most significant early in the morning and late into the evening. By 12:00pm the shadows will be mostly internalized within the site and to the non-residential land uses north of the subject lands. June 21: Summer months are typically when outdoor amenity areas are used the most. Properties west of Lancaster Street West continue to experience some shadows in the morning, with the longest morning shadows around 8:00 am. By noon the shadows will be mostly internalized within the site and within the abutting road right-of-way. In the afternoon time periods shadows continue to have minimal impact on surrounding properties. Longer shadows in the late afternoon mostly impact non-residential properties and areas already impacted by shadows from existing buildings. Shadow impacts are not anticipated to impact any adjacent lands for more than four consecutive hours. December 21: A number of the properties surrounding the subject lands experience shadows for the December time periods tested, in large part based on the length of shadows in winter months. The majority of impacted properties remain those properties located north of Lancaster Street West. Generally shadow impacts are deemed more acceptable in winter months as people are less likely to use their rear yard space during winter months and winter shadows do not impact private gardens/ landscaping. The shadow study diagrams demonstrate that the height and location of the building will not generate unacceptable amounts of shadows on adjacent lands, and on lands designated Low -Rise Residential. MARCH/SEPTEMBER 21 @ 12PM JUNE 21 @ 12PM ,� DECEMBER 21 @ 12PM qRR �� f t, 1tilt. 016 to f 36 55f LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief Page 100 of 387 SECTION 5 5.1 CONCLUSION The proposed development will conform to the City of Kitchener's Official Plan policies and urban design objectives as well as the site specific goals and objectives identified in this Brief. Overall, the proposed redevelopment represents a significant investment in Kitchener and will create new residential units in a landmark development, all of which contribute positively to the neighbourhood. The Concept Site Plan presented in this Urban Design Brief will contribute positively to the City of Kitchener and will act as a gateway into the Bridgeport West community. In summary, the proposed redevelopment will: • Capitalize on the existing location of the subject lands with views and vistas of the Grand River and located adjacent/near major employment within the Region; • Provide for intensification that is sensitive to the surrounding context; • Result in a pedestrian friendly development that supports active transportation while supporting existing and planned transit services, thereby minimizing future occupants' reliance on the automobile. • Introduce unique and interesting architecture to emphasize the development as a 'landmark' within Kitchener. • Create strong visually appealing street edges. • Increase the variety and viability of the Lancaster Transit Corridor as a destination for residents, employers, employees, and visitors by contributing to the mix of uses 37 55( LANCASTER INC. // Urban Design Brief in the broader area. The proposed development is a true 'mixed use development' with uses that include residential, office, retail, and open space. • Define the Lancaster Street West street edge by incorporating high quality architectural detailing and contemporary design combined with high quality landscaping and active ground floor uses. In our opinion the proposed site development is appropriate for this location and will contribute positively to the character and built form of this gateway site adjacent planned transit in the City of Kitchener. The development supports the objectives of the City's Official Plan to achieve a high standard of urban design, architecture and place -making that contributes positively to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. The proposal supports the City's overarching design directives by proposing a development that will reflect a high standard of design excellence; is visually distinctive creating an identifiable sense of place; is human -scaled, safe, secure and walkable; respects and enhances adjacent natural areas; is mutually supportive with the adjacent multi -residential development and existing single family homes, and; minimizes and mitigates adverse impacts. This brief concludes that the proposed design has considered and achieves the intent of the urban design policies outlined in the Official Plan and design directives from the Urban Design Manual and therefore should move forward through the Site Plan Process. Page 101 of 387 Conceptual Rendering (Subject to Change) FP �ppp�� UNAA �a � l ff O ppb A �frt�� �0P r� 1pp_1,-'0 ki APPENDIX A WIND STUDY Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Submitted To: Submitted By: Pedestrian Level Wind Preliminary Impact Assessment 528-550 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario March 30, 2023 BLWTL Project No. 21 L060 550 Lancaster Inc. c/o Corley Developments Inc. 621 Clarke Road London, Ontario N5V 2E1 The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory The University of Western Ontario Faculty of Engineering London, Ontario N6A 5139 Peter Case, Director (Operations) The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Western University © 1151 Richmond Street, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9 Tel: (519) 661-3338; Fax: (519) 661-3339 Internet: www.blwtl.uwo.ca; E-mail: info@blwtl.uwo.ca Page 104 of 387 1 REPORT OVERVIEW This study for the development at 528-550 Lancaster Street West in Kitchener was initiated by 550 Lancaster Inc. The BLWTL was engaged to carry out an initial high-level assessment of the expected pedestrian winds around the 528-550 Lancaster Street W site in Kitchener, and the impact of the proposed development to comfort conditions. This qualitative approach provides a description of potential wind conditions related to pedestrian comfort, identifies areas of accelerated flows, and presents conceptual mitigation strategies. This assessment is based on drawings received by BLWTL March 27, 2023. The proposed development consists of 5 apartment buildings ranging from 10 to 34 stories covering a plot with overall dimensions of about 200m x 130m as shown in the site plan (see Figure 1). Building A is 10 storeys; Building B is 12 storeys; Building C is 34 storeys; Building D is 26 storeys; Building E is 16 storeys. Building A is identified as existing (under construction) and is not directly evaluated in this scope of work. This report provides a qualitative street -level, wind environment assessment with a focus on pedestrian level comfort. For this qualitative assessment, the local wind climate is examined in relation to the buildings' location and draws upon experience obtained from related microclimate analyses. Together, this provides the basis to carry out this desktop analysis that is intended to provide a summary of the pedestrian level comfort conditions anticipated around the proposed development. It should be noted that the introduction of a high-rise building development in a relatively suburban environment will invariably create local wind speed-ups for some wind directions. With that expectation, the focus is to identify and develop strategies to make wind conditions suitable for the intended usage for the affected area. For example, entry areas should have a comfort category consistent with standing activities, while sidewalks should meet the condition of being comfortable for walking. 528-550 Lancaster St W 1 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 105 of 387 Figure 1 Development Layout (Site Plan) at 528-550 Lancaster Street W 06528-550 Lancaster St W 2 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 106 of 387 Site Specific Information The site is readily accessed by continuing about 0.5km north along Lancaster Street W when coming off The Conestoga Parkway (Highway 85). The existing site is located on the east side of Lancaster Street W and just west of the Grand River. It is presently the location of several private houses. The site is situated in suburban environment for all approach wind directions. Locally, open field areas include the Bridgeport Sportsfield located across the Grand River to the east of the site. The approach from the site down to the River is characterized by a 60ft embankment. More broadly, to the north, west, and south, buildings are largely comprised of 1 and 2 storey homes. Across the River to the east is a suburban development which opens up further to the east. Figure 2 shows aerial views looking over the site location. Beyond these areas, some 5-7 km away in most directions, the terrain opens up to a more expansive open country exposure. Wk Figure 2: Aerial view looking southeast over site (top) and west over site (bottom) (images courtesy of GoogleEarthTM) 528-550 Lancaster St W 3 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 107 of 387 2 Assessment of Wind Conditions 2.1 General The criteria used at the BLWTL for the assessment of pedestrian comfort are categorized by typical types of activity (walking, standing, sitting). In general, wind conditions suitable for walking are appropriate for sidewalks and parking areas. At entrances, lower wind speeds that are comfortable for standing are preferred. For amenity spaces, including public terraces, it is often desirable to have lesser winds suitable for sitting or long-term standing, depending on the intended use. If the criterion for walking is not satisfied, then an area is classified as uncomfortable for the intended usage. These criteria are more fully described in Appendix A, along with some other general details relevant to a pedestrian wind speed assessment, including a description of directional winds by season for the Kitchener -Waterloo area. The adjacent insert shows the predicted wind speeds exceeded 5% of the time on an annual basis for typical suburban and open country locations in K -W. These are compared to the different comfort categories (further described in Appendix A). In terms of comfort, winds expected in a typical suburban (S) environment are expected to be suitable for long sitting and therefore suitable for most activities regardless of duration. In a typical open country (0) environment, the winds can be expected to be somewhat more intense and suited for standing or leisurely walking. In summer, predicted winds can be expected to be lower than the annual winds shown, while in winter months higher winds speeds can be expected. 50Mean Wind Speed Exceeded 5% of the time 21 1:40— E 0 30 -------- FAST WALKING W LEISURELY WALKING --------- U)20— QSHORT SITTING/STANDING Q -- Z � 10 LONG SITTING 4 0 Note that local winds will be influenced by their immediate surroundings. For example, a broad tall building will undoubtedly cause downwash winds, creating local wind speed-ups at ground level particularly at building corners. Appendix B shows images of some typical wind patterns around midrise and tall buildings. 2.2 Existing Wind Conditions The property for the proposed development at 528-550 Lancaster Street West is currently the site of private homes and is largely covered in mixed deciduous and coniferous trees. It is surrounded by some more open lots. As the site is located in predominantly suburban environment, with a few nearby open fields, the site and nearby properties are largely expected to experience winds typical of a suburban environment. Nearby open parking lots and fields will experience winds approaching that of a typical open country exposure. The nearby area is currently undergoing some development, and there are locally some open sites nearby which are not considered in the present evaluation. Based on these surroundings, existing wind conditions on the site property and at adjacent properties are expected to be comfortable for standing in the summer, and for leisurely walking in the winter. 528-550 Lancaster St W 4 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 108 of 387 2.3 Predicted Wind Conditions — 528-550 Lancaster West Development 2.3.1 General Locations of the site Buildings main public entrances are indicated in Figure 3. Approximate locations of main entrances directly off Lancaster Street are also indicated in Figure 4. It is understood that there will be street trees along Lancaster. Landscaping is also planned throughout the development site and around its perimeter. Landscaping will be instrumental in achieving desired comfort levels particularly in the winter season and along Lancaster Street. Trees, and planters, even when bare during winter months, can disrupt the effects of downwash winds at Street level. Figure 3 Site Plan indicating locations of entry/exit locations. Figure 4 East Elevation (conceptual) view showing approximate locations for street level entrances. 528-550 Lancaster St W 5 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 109 of 387 Throughout the site of a multi -tower development, flow patterns can be complex. Figure 5 demonstrates some common influential wind patterns expected through the 528-550 Lancaster W site for different wind directions, and that can lead to locally accelerated wind flow at ground levels. In addition to the general patterns, downwash effects along Lancaster Street can be expected for frequent southwesterly and northwesterly wind directions, as illustrated in Figure 6. �. ` 0OW typically is al =around building c[ 1 FlowtdP 5a Y i Il is accelerated around 60ilding cothers and ovRr podium- r eritraM cornu ted From direct 1 1 Figure 5 Illustration of select flow patterns can develop in and around site. 528-550 Lancaster St W 6 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 110 of 387 II it ,11 SII iirIr`'?`L.,�'i 'i �lil � wF� 1M -, i r fr ra 1-■■ ■afma' ■-■ .!� ■a ra�■ �■ a Li ■a .aWla- ■.. 1lllWill IIIIo1iIN 1 �� 111II�III�II. liligiejis-a �;�� lilli uj-� i ISI 1 i IIII�iijiE�� -�" 1 111 `.'� Ii111-El01 m . : ■�?` ■ _ - -. 11 1 IEEE it .. •�r.:'.r., In1afE�.�� �. nI1i1li F-11141--11--1 I 1 �-1il ;I -iee iilll!Ili�ll. • + .. . , �, ., a !: a r i!i r ��= r L 111II�11111. . i t!�I @ ' '*II . F= . 4 . � f s of r• . ■ ■ ... ■ of 11 EE n ■■ ■■ a 2.3.2 Discussion of Expected Comfort Conditions The below discussion highlights some areas where specific attention may be required to achieve the desired comfort levels, particularly during the winter months. The following is an overview of some specific areas of attention: Lancaster sidewalk: Prominently facing Lancaster, Buildings A, B, E can influence downwash at sidewalk levels. During the summer season, the sidewalk along Lancaster is expected to experience wind suitable for standing to leisurely walking, consistent with sidewalk usage. During the winter months, winds can be expected to increase. With the installation of street trees along Lancaster (see below image), the downwash winds at sidewalk level are expected to be sufficiently mitigated to keep the sidewalk in a comfort category for sidewalk usage (leisurely walking or better). Recent experience has suggested that even without foliage, deciduous trees can reduce ground level winds due to downwash up to 10%. 2. Parking Podium between B and E: The area between Buildings B and E is expected to experience local speed-ups (approaching the fast walking category), especially for westerly winds flowing up and over and the parking garage entry/exit area and funneled between Buildings B and E. Along the top of this area, dense rows of moderately tall coniferous trees (min.15ft), (see Figure 7b for example) would be most effective. Also, equivalent tall railings or wind screens could be effective. Without effective mitigation this area and areas downstream can be uncomfortable for typical activities in both summer and winter. 528-550 Lancaster St W 8 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 112 of 387 a) b) c) d) Figure 7 Sample landscape/hardscape features to mitigate local winds a) 3-5' planters with evergreen shrubbery, b) 6-10' evergreens in rows, c) and d) 6' (min) windscreens staggered or continuous. 3. Area between Buildings A and C: The area between Buildings A and C is expected to experience local speed-ups (approaching or exceeding the fast - walking category), especially for westerly winds and for south-easterly winds being funneled between Buildings A and C. Along this area, dense rows of moderately tall coniferous trees (min.15ft), (see Figure 7b for example) would be most effective. Also, equivalent porous wind screens could be effective. Without effective mitigation this area and nearby areas downstream can be uncomfortable for typical activities in both summer and winter. rid sen region. 4. Channelled flow between Buildings A and B to C: �'IShrubbay ar tall woos wmd The area between Buildings A and B is conducive . J CP een W wig 4lus w w to lessen to producing accelerated winds, particularly for 1 _,`y, Wel III mar frequent westerly wind directions. These— accelerated winds can be expected to persist along the north face of Building A and through to y the space between Buildings A and C (see item 3� iiVuo 1 above). This being a driveway area can create G difficulty is installing effective mitigation. Every - effort should be made to put wind -impeding n^-� elements along this area to lessen the wind impacts, preferably in the form of tall coniferous W -p shrubbery or trees. 528-550 Lancaster St W 9 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 113 of 387 Entries: Many primary entries are located away from corners and are expected to be comfortable for the intended usage year-round. The west entry of Building D likewise is susceptible to downwash winds propagating through the development. Likewise, the south entry to Building B is expected to be susceptible to westerly winds (as described in item 4 above), as winds are funnelled between Buildings A and B. The wind conditions at these entries should be mitigated (see Figure 7) with strategically placed elements flanking the area (see insets below). Mitigation, similar to that shown in Figure 7, flanking this entryway would improve conditions. D •" s nd Sere d Planters — !o Dees$a_ try Wind:Scre14 #'lancers it Given the broad extent of Building B, the main (west) entry can be impacted by downwash winds stream -lined along Lancaster. This entry should be flanked by wind -mitigation devices (Figure 7) or adequately set -back from the building face. i� Wind Screen or Planters 6. Northeast winds: Northeast winds are more prominent during winter months. These can cause locally accelerated flow at the SE corner of Building E, and the NW and SE corners of Building D. Local mitigation (see examples in Figure 7), along with tree locations per the site plan, should be considered to shield winds from this direction. Winds from this direction can be further accentuated as they blow along the Grand River and up over the high embankment on approach to the general site. Roof -Top Amenity Terrace at 4th Floor: Local areas of the 4th level amenity terrace, atop 3 storey podium between Buildings C and D, can be susceptible to cornering winds around the adjacent Buildings. The site plan indicates extensive plantings around the perimeter and throughout this space. This is expected to be important to make this area suited for sitting during the summer months. 8. Building B Roof -Top Amenity Terrace at 13th Floor: Local areas of the 13th level amenity terrace, atop Building B, can be susceptible to local wind speed-ups over the top of the building. The site plan indicates extensive plantings around the perimeter and throughout this space. This, coupled with increased height railings or windscreens (6 feet) along the west side, is expected to be adequate to make this area suited for sitting during the summer months. 9. Adjacent Properties: For many adjacent areas, the comfort categorization of adjacent properties is expected to remain similar to that for the existing configuration. Nonetheless, for westerly winds, areas downstream (east) of Building C may experience increased winds. Modestly increased winds can be expected to the north and south of the development site for westerly wind conditions. This is not expected to impact the parking lot area or entry areas of the adjacent Tim Hortons to the south. 528-550 Lancaster St W 10 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 114 of 387 10. Building Corners: In general, all building corners can be expected to experience increased winds. Placement of evergreen shrubbery and planters can be effective at softening these effects, as well as act to keep pedestrian traffic away from high wind areas. 3 SUMMARY The BLWTL was engaged to carry out an initial high-level assessment of the expected pedestrian winds around the 528-550 Lancaster Street W site in Kitchener, and the impact of the proposed development to comfort conditions. This qualitative approach provides a high-level description of potential wind conditions related to pedestrian comfort, identifies areas of accelerated flows, and presents conceptual mitigation strategies. While the development is not expected to have a significant influence to winds on most neighbouring properties, i.e. the comfort categorization of adjacent properties is expected to remain similar to that for the existing configuration, areas to the east of Building C can experience the effects of downwash from Building C. The main public street level areas along Lancaster Street are expected to experience wind conditions consistent with the intended usage during summer months; this includes the entrances and sidewalks. During the winter months, the street line tree planting is important to mitigate downwash effects and maintain comfort levels suited for the intended usage. Specific entries and areas throughout the development site have been identified that are expected to benefit from some modest amounts of mitigation. The spacing between Buildings B and E, Buildings A and C, and Buildings A and B is such that accelerated flows that are generated can impact local comfort without effective mitigation. 4 Applicability of Results The assessments and recommendations in this report are based on the understanding of the proposed development as per site plans provided to the BLWTL in March, 2023. The qualitative assessment is made in context of the proposed building configuration in relationship with existing surroundings and the proposed buildings. This information cannot and should not be used for analysing building fagade pressures, door pressures, exhaust re -entrainment, etc. In the event of changes to the proposed development or proposed buildings around the development, the assessment made herein may be influenced. In the event of such changes, the BLWTL should be contacted to make an appropriate reassessment. These qualitative results are not to replace a detailed quantitative study(s) required for future planning stages of the development. Future wind tunnel testing will be critical to evaluate winds in some of the complex flow areas and understanding of the downstream extent of these winds around the taller buildings. 528-550 Lancaster St W 11 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 115 of 387 r-IT024041L FBI M., GENERAL DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT OF PEDESTRIAN LEVEL WINDS AND COMFORT A.1 Meteorological Data Wind climate data are based upon wind records taken at the Region of Waterloo International Airport (ISD Station 713680) between 1976 - 2017. Figure A-1 shows the distributions of wind speed frequency by direction for the four seasons. For the spring and summer seasons westerly to north-westerly winds are predominant. During the autumn season and especially the winter season the winds from the south- westerly to westerly directions become relatively more predominant. The winds presented in the wind - rose data are measured at 10m. Representative ground level winds might then be expected to be somewhat lower than those indicated on the wind -rose in a uniform terrain. The wind climate at the site is dependent on wind direction and will be influenced by and dependent upon the terrain type over which it travels. Figure A-1 shows the wind directionality for ranges of wind speeds. Stronger winds are indicated in the outermost contours. Winds over 40 km/hr are shown as the outermost colour zone in the contour plots. During the autumn, spring, and winter months winds over 40 km/hr are expected to occur about 3%, 4%, and 5% of the time, respectively. During summer months, a wind speed of 40 km/hr is expected to occur less than 1 % of the time. A.2 Criteria for Comfort Assessment The criteria used at BLWTL for the assessment of pedestrian comfort are categorized by the following types of activity. o Standing, Sitting for long exposure (< 14 km/hr): Wind felt on faces, leaves rustle slightly. Suitable for promenades, outdoor restaurants, or park benches where people may linger for long periods to eat, relax, or read a newspaper. o Standing, Sitting for short exposure (< 22 km/hr): Leaves and small twigs in constant motion; wind extends light flags. These winds are comfortable for building entrances or bus stops where people are likely to linger for a short time. o Leisurely Walking (< 29 km/hr): Raises dust and loose paper; small branches are moved. Wind speeds experienced are appropriate for activities which involve slow walking such as a leisurely stroll or window shopping. o Fast Walking (< 36 km/hr) : Small trees in leaf begin to sway; can cause movement to hair and loose clothing. Areas experiencing these winds would be appropriate for sidewalks, parks, or playing fields where people are active with little notice of moderate wind activity and unlikely to be in one location very long. Wind conditions are considered suitable for the corresponding activity if the wind speeds are expected to last 95% of the time. A designation as uncomfortable would exist for winds that fall outside these criteria. Safety is also considered on the basis that winds, if sufficiently large, will affect a person's balance. If such wind events occur more frequently than suggested then the wind conditions would be considered unsafe. Where such conditions exist, mitigating or remedial measures would typically be required to improve conditions to acceptable levels. 528-550 Lancaster St W -A1- Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 116 of 387 A.3 Pedestrian Wind Speed Assessment - General Comments In the assessment of winds particular to a site there are many variables that must be considered in predicting the wind speed and occurrence rates. These include but are not limited to: the aforementioned wind climate; the surrounding upstream terrain conditions; the juxtaposition and orientation of neighbouring buildings; and the geometry of the proposed buildings themselves. For a qualitative analysis, past analyses carried out for a number of buildings in various locations have afforded a good experience base which allows a knowledgeable assessment of wind conditions at and around the proposed development. In general, suburban settings provide surface roughness that can moderate wind conditions downstream, while more open expanses allow the oncoming wind to travel unobstructed. Winds also have a tendency to accelerate up sloped or hilly terrain, the magnitude of which also depends on the level of vegetation on and around the embankment. On a more local level, flow around an individual building is influenced by the building's orientation to the wind as well as the building height. Winds tend to accelerate locally around building corners as the wind tries to find a way around the obstruction. Buildings in close proximity and oriented at 90° to each other can `funnel' local approach winds, thus accelerating the flow between the buildings. For mid -rise buildings, some wind can be redirected downward over the face of the building, accelerating around corners as it reaches the ground levels. However, strategically located canopies or podiums can be beneficial in deflecting these `downwash' winds before reaching ground level, thereby improving pedestrian comfort. With respect to wind, it can be expected that conditions will be calm directly in the lee of a building. It should be realized that in areas that may be exposed to the direct sun, particularly in the summer months, some breeze can be favourable to the overall area comfort. Furthermore, some gentle breezes in any area do afford an exchange of air, preventing heavy stale air to accumulate as might be the case in wind - quiet or dead zones. The inclusion of any new development can be expected to ultimately alter the wind conditions at a site for specific wind directions and wind speeds as compared to the pre -development conditions. However, it is not practical to attempt to quantify the winds speeds in an area, given the number of variables involved, without an appropriate quantitative analysis. 528-550 Lancaster St W -A2- Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 117 of 387 North i6 North 0o- 330° I sty° wir f' . 606 "N West t�lm I East West CalmEast .270' �.— �— 5-891a 90" 270° -- 11 A% 240° k 120° 4 120° 218°pp 15©° 210° 150° 1''40° 1806 South South Sprinq Summer Naafi North 0¢ 330° 306 330° 304 300°4 60° 300° 4 \ 60° P - West 1 Carni East West Cairn E�sr 9 $"l - -- 09° 270° 4.°346 x 5 2400 120° 240P ~ - 120° +- r - I i 218° 1501, 210° 1504 18{1° 180° S011th South Autumn Wind Speed (km/h) Winter r V 1 4t}_0 X300: V<40.0 �20.0<V<30.0 X10.0<V<20.0 X0.0 c V <10.0 Figure A-1: Windroses showing directional distribution of seasonal wind (centered on a 10° sector): Based on data from Waterloo International Airport. 528-550 Lancaster St W -A3- Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 118 of 387 EXAMPLES OF WIND EFFECTS AROUND MIDRISE AND TALL BUILDINGS 528-550 Lancaster St W B1 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 119 of 387 LU D 3 OU ❑O z U U j a m ro z� wF mz ww z U c z 00 U U Page 120 of z U) U (7w w O Z Q 'O O ❑ vUi Z a Z J m J H Z 0 N o U = > LL, o o 0 LL ❑ S z m � m o U O = w ❑ d U F APPENDIX C ILLUSTRATION OF SOME PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS TO WIND EFFECTS AROUND BUILDINGS 528-550 Lancaster St W B2 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory Page 121 of 387 sy 1 y� ttLl! 1�41'T�ii111�i1��4w1� l4� t41 l .+� i I I Problems Downwash effect: wind is deflected to street level. Karrnan vortex street: wind swirls after dividing around a building. Confined horseshoe vortex: do wn wash curls up ward on an adjacent Building. Passageway effect: wind accelerates to get through passages. Page 122 of 387 Solutions Stepped pedestal: down wash is prevented from reaching street level. Covered walkways: (a) enclosed canopy deflects down wash; (b) open sides provide some breeze under the canopy, (c) canopy open at both ends is only a partial solution: if the wind direction is such that it blows, right through, a venturi effect is created. Recessed plaza: wind passes over lowered area. Public indicators: flags provide warning of unavoidable high -wind areas. a=ge 123 of 387 APPENDIX 6 SHADOW STUDY QO OMARCH 20 10AM 1 : 5000 OMARCH20 4PM 1 : 5000 "M U U l_S u u ri �` _ y \ P73,-► LT LF vL-J u y r 01 �oPp OMARCH 20 12PM O MARCH 20 2PM 1 : 5000 1 : 5000 OMARCH 20 6PM 1 : 5000 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify DANIEL L. CUSIMANO„ ARCHITECT, of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. \� The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. PRINT DATE 2023-03-21 7:38:03 PM No. Description Date REVISIONS ISSUED FOR k N CUSIMANa ARCHITECT III 111VIN11 11111U1 1-UNIU UN -U-11 '193 F (416)783 31 or LANCASTER 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ONTARIO Date Drawn by Checked by MARCH 2023 MK/KSS DLC SHADOW STUDY SPRING EQUINOX Scale 1:5000 Project number S-1.0 Paq-M-25 of 387 C .3 'N o a` n 1 w = inn � U LANG CRESCENTZ Inn OJUNE 21 10AM O JUNE 21 12PM 1 : 5000 1 : 5000 1 EN G1 O0 OJUNE 21 4PM O JUNE 21 6PM 1 : 5000 1 :5000 i� L*a JEJ-, Ly L, >,� JUNE 21 2PM 1 : 5000 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify DANIEL L. CUSIMANO„ ARCHITECT, of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. PRINT DATE 2023-03-21 7:38:27 PM No. Description Date REVISIONS ISSUED FOR k N CUSIMANa ARCHITECT �r�a;�a ;�� �r51��r,U11-U UUN16),�;oo,,, LANCASTER 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ONTARIO Date Drawn by Checked by MARCH 2023 MK/KSS DLC SHADOW STUDY SUMMER SOLSTICE Scale 1:5000 Project number S-1.1 Paq-M-26 of 387 ,u _ r � OPO OSEPTEMBER 22 10AM O SEPTEMBER 22 12PM 1 : 5000 1 : 5000 OSEPTEMBER 22 4PM O SEPTEMBER 22 6PM 1 : 5000 1 : 5000 SEPTEMBER 22 2PM '\7� 1 : 5000 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify DANIEL L. CUSIMANO,, ARCHITECT, of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. \� The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. PRINT DATE 2023-03-21 7:38:38 PM No. Description Date REVISIONS ISSUED FOR k N CUSIMANa ARCHITECT LANCASTER 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ONTARIO Date Drawn by Checked by MARCH 2023 MK/KSS DLC SHADOW STUDY FALL EQUINOX Scale 1:5000 Project number S-1.2 Paq-M-27 of 387 ODECEMBER21 10AM 1 : 5000 v ODECEMBER 21 4PM 1 : 5000 ODECEMBER21 12PM 1 : 5000 v (A)DECEMBER 21 2PM 1 : 5000 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT, of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. PRINT DATE 2023-03-21 7:38:48 PM No. Description Date REVISIONS I ISSUED FOR i k N CUSIMANO ARCHITECT �r�a;�a ;�� �r51��r,U11-U UUN16),�;oo,,, LANCASTER 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ONTARIO Date Drawn by Checked by MARCH 2023 MK/KSS DLC SHADOW STUDY WINTER SOLSTICE Scale 1:5000 Project number S-1.3 Paq-M-28 of 387 APPENDIX C OVERLOOK ANALYSIS �PRS�� 9 z O U z QP O z Q ILL! 0 ILL! 0- 0 `PNOkkti P BUILDING Eqqt 18 STOREYS LOW X O CID 22.Om 8 STOREYS LL LL O a O 0 Lnj LIMIT OF FUTURE ROAD WIDENING AL SI DEWALK 310.961 F 311.501 PROPERTY LINE TBG /TOWER OVERLOOKI,do-1 94NE PLAN �O 15311 � � E1� X235 S � EPSEMEN0 10 1 Okk20� 28.6m REQ. 35.2m 22.8m REQ. 29.4m 78% Q z O_ W coE M E - u BUILDING D 26 STOREYS 00 W 22.Om 8 STOREYS �N S� �N PS N� MB SE EP �0 T S U n I W U Z Q W Q PODIUM AMENITY AT 4TH FLOOR ON TOP OF PARKING GARAGE 31.6m REQ. 46.3m 68% 0 61.3m REQ. 28.9m 100% 22.5m BUILDING C E 34 STOREYS 00 c6 u 8 STOREYS E c4 DROP OFF N M Lo uJ O 0 • Q 0 Ir- W DROP OFF a o o G �F 1� 67.7m � � BUILDING B 12 STOREYS ROOF TOP AMENITY L-7 if II II � W 0 o O ULn o 313.50 LIMIT OF FUTURE ROAD WIDENING oX AL m ,,, SIDEWALK LANCASTER STREET WEST aiiin0 (INV 8bn0 'ON00 313.80 LL LL 0 o- 0 O 22.4m o 317.10''. LEGEND BUILDING A REISSUED FOR DPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2023-03-20 BUILDING B REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION DRO F BUILDING C REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION M "o, BUILDING D ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION O 1 N CY FINISHED GRADE 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST W ISSUED FOR KITCHENER, ONTARIO �N S� �N PS N� MB SE EP �0 T S U n I W U Z Q W Q PODIUM AMENITY AT 4TH FLOOR ON TOP OF PARKING GARAGE 31.6m REQ. 46.3m 68% 0 61.3m REQ. 28.9m 100% 22.5m BUILDING C E 34 STOREYS 00 c6 u 8 STOREYS E c4 DROP OFF N M Lo uJ O 0 • Q 0 Ir- W DROP OFF a o o G �F 1� 67.7m � � BUILDING B 12 STOREYS ROOF TOP AMENITY L-7 if II II � W 0 o O ULn o 313.50 LIMIT OF FUTURE ROAD WIDENING oX AL m ,,, SIDEWALK LANCASTER STREET WEST aiiin0 (INV 8bn0 'ON00 313.80 LL LL 0 o- 0 O 22.4m o 317.10''. LEGEND BUILDING A REISSUED FOR DPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2023-03-20 BUILDING B REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-11-28 BUILDING C REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-25 BUILDING D ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION BUILDING E 1 GRADE ELEVATIONS 319.00 FINISHED GRADE 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST 317.10 ISSUED FOR SITE PLAN 317.00 AIR WELL C3� W 21.8m 3 10 STOREYS EXISTING BUILDING A �I u 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 SCALE METERS 319.00 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT, of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropiate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. PRINT DATE: 2023-03-20 Vi 11111 CD CC]I�LCY ve DEVELOPMENTS Q F V E L {y P 71h E N No. DESCRIPTION DATE R E V I S 1 0 N S 5 REISSUED FOR DPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2023-03-20 4 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-11-28 3 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-25 2 ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-06 1 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 2022-04-14 No.DESCRIPTION 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST DATE ISSUED FOR �C CUSIMANO ARCHITECT 185 BRIDGELAND AVENUE, SUITE 107, TORONTO, ONTARIO M6A 1Y7 T (416)783-5193 F (416)783-3100 PROJECT: LANCASTER 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ONTARIO DATE: DWN. BY: CH'D. BY: MARCH 2023 MK/KSS/BW DLC DRAWING TITLE: 319.50 TBG / OVERLOOK SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 = 250 DRAWING No.: 0 L 1 0 PRO -1. NO.: ■ 37% This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided 12 % by and is the property of DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT. 59.4m no 8.3m 14.2m The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT, of any 33% variations from the supplied information. w 100% This drawing is not to be scaled. 5.8m 22.Om 39.9m U �°"6P�(, The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the SITE PLAN 0� appropiate consultant's drawings before proceeding s°°o•G I I I I Z with the work. AIR a'®6r Construction must conform to all applicable codes and P pIP •` requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. REQ. 35.2m REQ. 46.3m 81 168% - " 3 The contractor working from drawings not specifically •'`� a9 marked 'For Construction' must assume full x m responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or Pa damages resulting from his work. CIO 100 o' REQ. 0% ��a N o0 00 P PRINT DATE: 0 C1 - o 2023-03-20 V o$ REQ. 29.4m :REQ.2 .1m� 78% > 40 `� � 000000 61 4 r ^ LANCASTER STREET WEST I Z I J I � I I m I 22.Om 31.6m 22.5m 'I 'I N �l VIVA' C17"CORLCY °EVEL0PMEN' UJ V Z J No. DESCRIPTION DATE R E V I S 1 0 N S CIO LLMM CIO 22.Om 22.8m Z 67.7m 22.4m D J Q rl M� WV 5 REISSUED FOR DPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2023-03-20 n ZZ 4 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-11-28 - 3 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-25 Q2 ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-06 1 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 2022-04-14 No. DESCRIPTION DATE 21.8m w m ISSUED FOR FG 317.10 FG 317.10 CUSIMAN 0 ARCHITECT 185 BRIDGELAND AVENUE, SUITE 107, TORONTO, ONTARIO M6A 1Y7 T (416)783-5193 F (416)783-3100 LEGEND OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BETWEEN BUILDING B & D OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BETWEEN BUILDING B & C OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BETWEEN BUILDING A & C PROJECT: LANCASTER 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST DATE: DWN. BY: CH'D. BY: MARCH 2023 MK/KSS/BW DLC DRAWING TITLE: OVERLOOK ANALYSIS HL HEIGHT X LENGTH BUILDING B & D BUILDING B & C NOTE: FINISHED GRADE= 317.10 SCALE: DRAWING No.: � BUILDING B& D 2 BUILDING B& C 3 BUILDINGA& C 1 =250 PRO -1. NO.: O L 1 ■ 1 BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING F PROVIDED BUILDING C OVERLOOK = 30% BUILDING D BUILDING B & D TOWER SEPARATION BUILDING E 24.5m P/S PHYSICAL SEPARATION CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED FG FINISHED GRADE OVERLOOK CALCULATION BUILDING C & B TOWER SEPARATION 40.5m 51.3m BUILDING B CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (42.6X 67.7) / 200 = 14.4m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 33% BUILDING B & D TOWER SEPARATION 34.6m 24.5m BUILDING D CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (82.9X 48.8) / 200 = 20.2m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 100% BUILDING D & B TOWER SEPARATION 34.6m 24.5m OVERLOOK CALCULATION BUILDING B CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (42.6X 67.7) / 200 = 14.4m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 12% BUILDING B & C TOWER SEPARATION 40.5m 51.3m BUILDING C CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (106.9 X 48.8) / 200 = 26.1 m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 37% BUILDING C & A TOWER SEPARATION 34.8m 24.3m OVERLOOK CALCULATION KITCHENER, ONTARIOage BUILDING A CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (34.0 X 51.3) / 200 = 8.7m OVERLOOK = 50% OVERLOOK = 0% BUILDING A & C TOWER SEPARATION 34.8m 24.3m BUILDING C CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (106.9 X 48.8) / 200 = 26.1 m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 0% BUILDING C & A TOWER SEPARATION 34.8m 24.3m F 23% 22% 40.2m 11.2m 37.6m 79% 31% 4.3m 15.7m 35.7m LEGEND BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING F PROVIDED BUILDING C OVERLOOK = 30% BUILDING D BUILDING B & E TOWER SEPARATION BUILDING E 22.8m P/S PHYSICAL SEPARATION HL HEIGHT X LENGTH FG FINISHED GRADE NOTE: FINISHED GRADE = 317.10 OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BETWEEN BUILDING B & E OVERLOOK CALCULATION BUILDING B CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (42.6X 67.7) / 200 = 14.4m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 79% BUILDING B & E TOWER SEPARATION 29.4m 22.8m ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION BUILDING E CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S =(HL)/200 =(58.2 X 51.4) / 200 = 15.Om OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 31% BUILDING E & B TOWER SEPARATION 29.4m 22.8m � BUILDING B & E OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BETWEEN BUILDING E & D OVERLOOK CALCULATION BUILDING E CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S =(HL)/200 =(58.2 X 51.4) / 200 = 15.Om OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 22% BUILDING E & D TOWER SEPARATION 35.2m 28.6m ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION BUILDING D CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (82.9X 48.8) / 200 = 20.2m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 23% BUILDING D & E TOWER SEPARATION 35.2m 28.6m 2 BUILDING E & D FIG 317.10 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT, of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropiate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. PRINT DATE: 2023-03-20 11111 C17COP�EY wive D E V E L 0 P M E N' No. DESCRIPTION I DATE R E V I S 1 0 N S 5 REISSUED FOR DPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2023-03-20 4 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-11-28 3 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-25 2 ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-06 1 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 2022-04-14 No. DESCRIPTION DATE ISSUED FOR >4(::: CUSIMAN 0 ARCHITECT 185 BRIDGELAND AVENUE, SUITE 107, TORONTO, ONTARIO M6A 1Y7 T (416)783-5193 F (416)783-3100 PROJECT: LANCASTER 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ONTARIO DATE: DWN. BY: CH'D. BY: MARCH 2023 MK/KSS/BW DLC DRAWING TITLE: OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BUILDING B & E BUILDING E & D SCALE: 1 = 250 DRAWING No.: PRO -1. NO.: OL -1.2 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT, of any 100% variations from the supplied information. w3 39% This drawing is not to be scaled. U29.8m 19.9m 1 51�1I6The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of Xsurvey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., ,eg011 A information shown on this drawing. Refer to the SITEPLAN appropiate consultant's drawings before proceeding spy euILoino with the work. AIR o.roPo.= __�=n Construction must conform to all applicable codes and I P 1ljP cA`ay� _ amiun,u.�i, rvw. am '} �m requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. J REQ. 35.2m REQ. 46.3m moo.. oQ 81% 68 3 The contractor working from drawings not specifically •'`� a9 marked 'For Construction' must assume full x m responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or °a damages resulting from his work. e' REQ. 28.9m a 100% Iq 00 00 _o �o PRINT DATE: o o 2023-03-20 V `o REQ. 29.4m REO. 2.1m� 78% > 40 i LANCASTER STREET WEST i 1,1111 V Ve DCOPLEY ° E V E L 4 P M E N' No. DESCRIPTION DATE R E V I S 1 0 N S 48.8m 51.3m 19.9m m 21.6m 51.3 D J '^ Q m Vn 5 REISSUED FOR DPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2023-03-20 zZ 4 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-11-28 3 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-25 Q2 ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-06 U1 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 2022-04-14 5/ No. DESCRIPTION DATE LJJ m I ISSUED FOR FIG 317.10 FIG 317.10 AFG CUSIMAN 0 ARCHITECT 185 BRIDGELAND AVENUE, SUITE 107, TORONTO, ONTARIO M6A 1Y7 T (416)783-5193 F (416)783-3100 LEGEND OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BETWEEN BUILDING B & A PROJECT: LANCASTER 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST MARCH 2023 MK/KSS/BW DLC DRAWING TITLE: OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BUILDING B & A NOTE: FINISHED GRADE = 317.10 SCALE: 1 = 250 DRAWING No.: � BUILDING B & A PRO -1. NO.: OL -1.3 BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING F PROVIDED BUILDING C OVERLOOK = 30% BUILDING D BUILDING B & A TOWER SEPARATION BUILDING E 22.4m P/S PHYSICAL SEPARATION HL HEIGHT X LENGTH FG FINISHED GRADE OVERLOOK CALCULATION KITCHENER, ONTARIO DATE: DWN. BY: CH'D. BY:Page 38z 133 of BUILDING B CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (42.6X 67.7) / 200 = 14.4m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 100% BUILDING B & A TOWER SEPARATION 23.1 22.4m BUILDING A CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (34.0 X 51.3) / 200 = 8.7m OVERLOOK = 50% OVERLOOK = 39% BUILDING A & B TOWER SEPARATION 23.1m 22.4m FIG 317.10 LEGEND BUILDING A BUILDING C BUILDING F PROVIDED BUILDING C OVERLOOK = 30% BUILDING D BUILDING C & D TOWER SEPARATION BUILDING E 31.6m P/S PHYSICAL SEPARATION HL HEIGHT X LENGTH FG FINISHED GRADE NOTE: FINISHED GRADE = 317.10 OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BETWEEN BUILDING C & D OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BETWEEN BUILDING D & A OVERLOOK CALCULATION BUILDING C CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (106.9 X 48.8) / 200 = 26.1 m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 45% BUILDING C & D TOWER SEPARATION 46.3m 31.6m ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION BUILDING D CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (82.9X 48.8) / 200 = 20.2m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 45% BUILDING D & C TOWER SEPARATION 46.3m 31.6m � BUILDING C & D OVERLOOK CALCULATION BUILDING D CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (82.9X 48.8) / 200 = 20.2m OVERLOOK = 30% OVERLOOK = 11 % BUILDING D & A TOWER SEPARATION 28.9m 21.6m ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION BUILDING A CITY RECOMMENDED PROVIDED P/S = (HL)/200 = (34.0 X 51.3) / 200 = 8.7m OVERLOOK = 50% OVERLOOK = 10% BUILDING A & D TOWER SEPARATION 28.9m 21.6m 2 BUILDING D & A This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify DANIEL L. CUSIMANO, ARCHITECT, of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropiate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. PRINT DATE: 2023-03-20 11111 C17COP�EY r wive D E V E L 0 P M E N' No. DESCRIPTION I DATE R E V I S 1 0 N S 5 REISSUED FOR DPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2023-03-20 4 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-11-28 3 REISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-25 2 ISSUED FOR OPA/ZBA SUBMISSION 2022-05-06 1 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 2022-04-14 No. DESCRIPTION DATE ISSUED FOR >4(::: CUSIMAN 0 ARCHITECT 185 BRIDGELAND AVENUE, SUITE 107, TORONTO, ONTARIO M6A 1Y7 T (416)783-5193 F (416)783-3100 PROJECT: LANCASTER 550 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ONTARIO DATE: DWN. BY: CH'D, BY: MARCH 2023 MK/KSS/BW DLC DRAWING TITLE: OVERLOOK ANALYSIS BUILDING C & D BUILDING D &A SCALE: 1 = 250 DRAWING No.: PRO -1. NO.: OL -1.4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 528-550 Lancaster Street West f.lr � � MMYt VJ Multiple 34 Storeys, 1281 Dwelling Residential Floor Space Units ft 20 Ratio of 7.5 Live/Work Units 0,01 Iur� ER Have Your Voice Heard! Date: May 8, 2023 Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West orVirtuaI Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, meeting details, start time of this item orto appearasa delegation, visit: kitchener.ca/meetings To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchener.ca/ PlanningApplications or contact: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x 7668 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener will consider applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate a residential development having a maximum building height of 34 storeys, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.5, providing 1,281 dwelling units plus 20live/work units, and having a reduced parking rate of 0.7 parking spaces per dwelling unit and a reduced visitor parking rate of 0.09 parking spaces perp eg 1r,45 of 387 Concept Drawing f.lr � � MMYt VJ Multiple 34 Storeys, 1281 Dwelling Residential Floor Space Units ft 20 Ratio of 7.5 Live/Work Units 0,01 Iur� ER Have Your Voice Heard! Date: May 8, 2023 Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West orVirtuaI Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, meeting details, start time of this item orto appearasa delegation, visit: kitchener.ca/meetings To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchener.ca/ PlanningApplications or contact: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x 7668 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener will consider applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate a residential development having a maximum building height of 34 storeys, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.5, providing 1,281 dwelling units plus 20live/work units, and having a reduced parking rate of 0.7 parking spaces per dwelling unit and a reduced visitor parking rate of 0.09 parking spaces perp eg 1r,45 of 387 City of Kitchener Heritage — OPA/ZBA Comment Form Project Address: 544-550 Lancaster Street West & 26 Bridge Street West File Number: OPA21/010/L/AP, ZBA21/015/L/AP Comments Of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Deeksha Choudhry Email: deeksha.choudhry@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Date of Comments: March 14, 2023 Heritage Planning staff has reviewed the following material for the proposed development on the lands municipally addressed as 544-550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street West to provide the comments outlined below: • Addendum to the Revised HIA assessing impacts to 20 Bridge Street West dated December 2022; • Revised Urban Design Brief dated December 2022; • Proposed Elevations for the proposed development at 544-546 Lancaster Street West; Staff have also reviewed the updated site plan that was submitted after the Post -Circulation of the comments that were sent to the applicant. 1. Site Specific Comments: The properties municipally addressed as 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West are not designated or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act but have been identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory as having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Per Section 12.C.1.4 of the City's Official Plan, it is acknowledged that not all cultural heritage resources have been identified and a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. The properties are also located in close proximity to the Grand River Corridor Cultural Heritage Landscape as per the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study, prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., and approved by Council in 2015. The property municipally addressed as 26 Bridge Street West does not contain any protected or listed cultural heritage resources. However, it is located adjacent to a property municipally addressed as 20 Bridge Street West. 20 Bridge Street West is identified on the Heritage Kitchener Advisory Committee A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 136 of 387 Inventory as a property of interest that is 'Under Review'. It is a 2 -storey red brick house that was constructed c. 1890. Heritage Planning staff reached out to the property owner in 2013 to receive permission to access the property to complete a fulsome evaluation and take photographs of the exterior of the existing dwelling. Permissions to access the property were not granted and therefore a fulsome assessment of the property has not been completed. The applicant is proposing to relocate the two existing dwellings at 544- 546 Lancaster Street to 26 Bridge Street West. The proposed development includes the re -location of the two buildings currently located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West to the property municipally addressed as 26 Bridge Street West. This would allow for a comprehensive mixed use development on the lands included within 544-550 Lancaster Street West. 2. Heritage Planning Comments 2.1 Preliminary Review of the Revised Heritage Impact Assessment for 544-546 Lancaster Street West An updated draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by MHBC Planning dated September 2021. The draft HIA contains an assessment of the buildings addressed as 544-546 Lancaster Street West and concludes that the properties have cultural heritage value or interest for design/physical and historic/associative values. The updated draft HIA proposed the relocation of the buildings currently addressed as 544-546 Lancaster Street West to the property municipally located as 26 Bridge Street West. The draft HIA concludes that: • The removal of the concrete patios, walkways, and the rear additions to 546 Lancaster Street west is considered a neutral impact. • The removal of the stone foundation of both buildings is considered a minor adverse impact as it will result in the removal of an original foundation • The removal of the buildings from their existing location to an alternative location off-site is considered a minor adverse impact as the buildings do not have a significance contextual relationship with their existing location in-situ. 2.2 The draft HIA makes the following recommendations: • That a Re -location and Conservation Plan be drafted which provides details on how the buildings will be prepared for re -location, stabilized, and re -located to their new location, repaired, altered, and conserved over the long term; • An interpretive plaque be drafted and installed at the proposed new location which interprets the history of the buildings, as well as their original location; and A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 137 of 387 • That the draft HIA and its attachments be accepted as a historic and photographic record of the buildings in their existing locations in-situ. 2.3 Staff Review of the draft HIA Staff has completed a comprehensive review of the draft HIA that was submitted and provided comments in a separate document. The draft HIA is still in the draft stage and has not been approved by the Director of Planning. The draft HIA was presented to the Heritage Kitchener committee at the September 6, 2022 meeting. Comments of the Committee were included as part of the staff review document of the HIA. 2.4 Heritage Planning Comments regarding OPA/ZBA Application for 544-550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street West The houses located on the subject properties meet the criteria for designation under O. Reg 9/06, and even though relocation of cultural heritage resources can be a complicated activity, if it results in the retention of these resources, then it should be looked at as a conservation method. In this case, a structural assessment has determined that the houses are good candidates for relocation. However, staff do not yet have a Relocation Plan that would determine how these houses will be moved, and staff do not have a Conservation Plan, detailing the short-term, medium-term, and long-term conservation measures to ensure the long-term protection of these homes. Staff require that these documents be submitted at the site plan stage (for both 544-550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street West, or whichever might come first) as part of a complete application. All previous comments that staff have provided the applicant with continue to apply. Furthermore, the new legislative requirements enacted through Bill 23 means that a site plan application will no longer be required for 26 Bridge Street West. As such, for this application to proceed, a zoning holding provision will now be required on the current OPA/ZBA application for the proposed development at 528-550 Lancaster Street West. to ensure the houses are safely and efficiently moved to the new location. Official Plan Policy 17.E.13.1.e allows the City to place holding provisions for zoning until conditions related to cultural heritage conservation are satisfied. This holding provision will include the following to be completed before it can be lifted: • That the Holding provision (H) applying on the subject property municipally addressed as 544- 550 Lancaster Street not be lifted until a Re -location and Conservation Plan for 544-546 Lancaster Street has been submitted for review by the City's Heritage Planner and approved by the Director of Planning; A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 138 of 387 Further, staff will be including certain conditions as part of the site plan process for 544-546 Lancaster Street west: - That the holding provision be lifted prior to any grading, construction or demolition activities can take place; - That a Letter of Credit be provided for the costs of relocated the existing houses at 544-546 Lancaster Street West, including any stabilization work that may be required. The securities will be released once the houses have been successfully moved. - That within 6 months of occupancy, the owner shall install a commemorative plaque at 528-550 Lancaster Street West. - That the relocated properties be listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest the day they are successfully moved. The draft HIA also recommends that a commemorative be installed at 26 Bridge Street West. Additionally, there needs to be sufficient treatment of the retaining walls that are being proposed on 26 Bridge Street West. Staff strongly encourage the application to look at different materials (perhaps a natural stone material) and screening landscaping for better compatibility with these heritage resources and to soften the views of the site. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 139 of 387 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 528, 544-550 Lancaster St W 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: NA Date of comments: April 14, 2023 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application: • Sustainability Statement — 528, 544 & 550 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, prepared by MHBC dated May 27, 2021 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment for the development of the subject lands with an 8 storey building, a 16 storey building with a 6 storey podium, two 20 storey apartment buildings with 6 storey podiums and one 26 storey apartment with a 4 storey podium, 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. • 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. • Based on my review of the supporting documentation, the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments can be supported as several sustainable measures have been proposed or are being considered for the development. • 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. • Potential items for consideration for Site Plan: o Opportunity for community / common gardens and urban agriculture 1IPage Page 140 of 387 o Use of alternative water supply and demand management systems such as rainwater harvesting and grey water reuse or readiness of the development to incorporate such systems in the future o Immediate implementation of renewable energy systems such as ground source or air source heat pumps, roof -top solar panels, and solar thermal hot water systems 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy consumption. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the potential for implementing district energy exists. 4. Advice: ➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability- initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise). ➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under 'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement 21 Page Page 141 of 387 City of Kitchener COMMENT FORM Project Address: 528-550 Lancaster Street West Application Type: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA21/010/L/AP Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/015/L/AP Comments of: Environmental Planning — City of Kitchener Commenter's Name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.mussel man@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 X 7068 Date of Comments: January 23, 2023 Written comments due: January 24, 2023 1. Plans, Studies and Reports submitted as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • Tree Preservation Report 1.1, Supplementary Report To Tree Preservation Report 1.0, 528 - 550 Lancaster St W., Kitchener, dated April 13, 2022, prepared by Pinnacle Tree & Shrub Care. • Summary of Circulation Comments and Status, 528 - 550 Lancaster St W., Kitchener, prepared by MHBC, Last Revised May 31, 2022. 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the supplementary information (as listed above) in response to environmental planning staff comments/concerns regarding the proposed OPA and ZBA. Below are the responses received to comments/concerns provided: • The report notes that all 211 trees inventoried are to be removed. Justification is to be provided as to why no trees can be retained onsite. o Proposed development/ excavation of site impacts all trees. The construction is high and will cause severe root loss on exiting trees. Removal of existing vegetation is justified by replacement with native species. • The report is to provide the break -down of native trees, nonnative trees, invasive, poor quality and dead trees to be removed. This analysis will aid in discussions regarding the removal or retention of trees in specific areas and compensation plantings. o A new Tree Inventory Table had been added to this report with a column depicting native trees, non-native trees and invasive trees (Appendix 8, column 'Tree Origin Class'). The table is based off the Tree Inventory Table from the 'Tree Preservation Report 1.0'. Poor quality and dead trees are listed under this table (Appendix A, columns 'Health' and 'Structure'). Trees are noted as either 'Good, Fair, Poor, or Dead. These columns indicate tree health. • Confirmation is to be provided of all trees in common ownership and off property that are proposed to be removed or impacted as part of the planned development proposal. Owner consent for all trees removed or impacted will be required this also applies to any City or Regionally owned lands. o All trees identified in the report 'Tree Preservation Report 1.0; are owned trees. Tree ownership can be identified in Appendix A (See column 'Tree Ownership') A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 142 of 387 • Pre application comments noted that an assessment of the value of the vegetation proposed for removal is required. This value will be the basis for compensation plantings that should be provided beyond UDM base standards through the Landscape Plan that will be required as part of final Site Plan approval. o A new Tree Inventory Table has been added to this report (Appendix B) with a column depicting the value of the vegetation to be removed based off of the 'Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9r" Edition'. The table is based off the information in the Tree Inventory Table from the 'Tree Preservation Report 1.0'. The total value of the vegetation to be removed is $58,015.81. o Extensive tree planting will be included as part of the overall final landscape design. Tree selections and details will be provided as part of the Landscape submissions that will form part of the formal Site Plan Approval process • Confirmation is to be provided by the arborist that no endangered, threatened special concern and expatriated plant species (as per current official species at risk in Ontario regulations) have been identified on site as part of a revised report. o As per the 'Tree Preservation Report 1.0' No endangered, threatened, special concern, or expatriated trees are present on site as per the 'Endangered Species Act Ontario Regulation 230/08 Species at Risk in Ontario List'. Support of the proposed OPA and ZBA (facilitating the redevelopment) will also support the removal of all the trees from the properties. The removal of all the trees will have an impact on ecological functions and the distribution of woodland cover in the local planning community. If supported, an ecologically sound tree replacement plan (to support the future site plan application) will be imperative to mitigate impacts. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: Tree Management Plan o As per 8.C.2.16. of the Official Plan, the City will require the preparation and submission of a tree management plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available on the City's Website), where applicable, as a condition of a development application. o Any tree management plan must identify the trees proposed to be removed, justify the need for removal, identify the methods of removal and specify an ecologically sound tree replacement scheme and any mitigative measures to be taken to prevent detrimental impacts on remaining trees. Woodlands o As per 8.C.2.17. of the Official Plan, the City will consider the importance of woodlands, not classified as significant, during the development review process by considering the following: a) the potential impact of the proposed development, redevelopment or site alteration on the ecological functions of the woodland; b) the impact of the proposed development, redevelopment or site alteration on the extent and distribution of woodland cover in the watershed, the city and the local planning community; and, c) opportunities to restore or re-establish productive forest habitats consisting of native species following the completion of the proposed development. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 143 of 387 Asper 8.C.2.18. oft he Official Plan, the City will minimize the impact of development, redevelopment or site alteration on woodlands, not classified as significant through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, which may include compensation. Hedgerows o As per Section 8.C.2.19. of the Official Plan, when considering development, redevelopment or site alteration proposals, the City may require the protection and enhancement of hedgerows, especially where: a) they link other elements of the Natural Heritage System; b) wildlife regularly use them as habitat or movement corridors; c) they are composed of mature, healthy trees; d) they contain trees that are rare, unique, culturally important or over 100 years in age; or, e) they contribute to the aesthetics of the landscape. Natural Heritage Features o The mapping and criteria for identifying individual natural heritage features is included in the Kitchener Natural Heritage System Technical Background Report (rev. June 2014). 4. Anticipated Fees: • N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 144 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Dave Seller Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 9:44 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: Updated submission comments - 528-550 Lancaster St W City of Kitchener Application Type: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -Revised Plans Application: OPA21/010/L/AP & ZBA21/015/L/AP Project Address: 528-550 Lancaster Street West Comments of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 Date of Comments: January 23, 2023 a. After reviewing Appendix C submitted (December 13, 2022) by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, which is part of the Addendum to Planning Justification Report submitted by MHBC (December 22, 2022), Transportation Services offer the following comments. Based on Paradigms update to the concept plan, the applicant is proposing to develop five residential apartment towers ranging from 6 to 30 storeys. There are 1281 residential dwelling units being provided with a parking ratio of 0.70 spaces per unit, which equates to 897 associated parking spaces. There are 20 live/work units being proposed with 1 parking space being provided for each live/work unit, for a total of 917 parking spaces. There are 123 visitor parking spaces being provided. To assist in reducing vehicle dependency, there are Transportation Demand Management strategies being for this development, which include charging for parking as a separate cost to the residents, provision of 1000 Class A bicycle parking spaces and connectivity to existing pedestrian facilitates, existing Grand River Transit routes and future cycling facilities. Therefore, Transportation Services can support the proposed parking ratio of 0.70 spaces per unit, 123 visitor parking spaces and TDM strategies mentioned above. b. Floor plans — Level P2: as a precautionary note, accessing the ramp may become difficult due to the location of the concrete support posts (see redlines below). 1 Page 145 of 387 a II #I MEM II IN I i 9 FATA]144�---�Tli�AA Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller@kitchener.ca Page 146 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Barry Cronkite Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 9:08 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; 'Pierre Chauvin'; Dave Seller Cc: Nicolette Van Oyen; 'Projects - Corley Developments Inc.'; Erica Bayley; 'Stephen Litt'; 'Mark Hoculik'; Mitchell Przewieda Subject: RE: Updated Submission Package 550 Lancaster It works on our end. From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 5:38 PM To: 'Pierre Chauvin' <pchauvin@mhbcplan.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.SelIer@kitchener.ca>; Barry Cronkite <Barry.Cronkite@kitchener.ca> Cc: Nicolette Van Oyen <nvanoyen@mhbcplan.com>; 'Projects - Corley Developments Inc.' <projects@corleydev.com>; Erica Bayley <ebayley@ptsl.com>; 'Stephen Litt' <sl@vivedevelopment.ca>; 'Mark Hoculik' <mh@vivedevelopment.ca>; Mitchell Przewieda <mitch @corleydev.com> Subject: RE: Updated Submission Package 550 Lancaster Importance: High Pierre, I think you mean the following. Please confirm: • Required Dwelling Unit Parking: 1,281 units x 0.6 (proposed dwelling unit parking rate / unit) = 769 • Required "Unassigned" Visitor Parking Spaces: 1,281 units x 0.1 (proposed visitor parking rate / unit) = 128 • Required Live / Work Parking: 1,338 square metres live/work unit area / 67 (proposed parking rate) = 20 • "even if 20 additional visitor spaces were used for the commercial uses (a doubling of the allocated amount), there would remain 108 [not 103] visitor spaces available (a rate of 8%)." [128 — 20 = 108] Dave and Barry, please advise ASAP whether this is acceptable once you hear from Pierre. Let me know if you want to meet. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca 004DvO00%PG Page 147 of 387 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 528-550 Lancaster St W Owner: 550 Lancaster Inc. and 528 Lancaster Street West Inc Application: OPA21/010/L/AP and ZBA21/015/L/AP Dec 23 2022 resubmission Comments Of: Parks & Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7427 Date of Comments: Jan 2023 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) 0 No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: a. Site Plan and Floor Plans - Cusimano Architect 17 pages - dated 2022-11-28 b. Urban Design Brief — MHBC Planning — dated May 2022 (Updated Dec 2022) c. Elevations Cusimano Architect 10 pages - dated 2022-11-28 d. Addendum to Planning Justification Report — MHBC letter and documentation - dated Dec 22 2022 2. General Comments: a. The parkland dedication requirement for the OPA/ZBA applications is deferred and will be assessed at a future Site Plan application and required as a condition of Site Plan approval. The City's Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Policy have recently been revised and the Bylaw is under appeal. Further changes to the Bylaw may be required to address recent Provincial legislative changes through Bill 23/More Homes Built Faster Act. b. The Bridgeport West Community currently has only 0.9 sq.m./person of active park space which is critically below the city wide average of 9.8 sq.m./person and that deficiency will increase as a result of the proposed intensification. Therefore, the City will be expecting that parkland dedication will be met, at least in part, through the dedication of physical parkland/park investment within the neighbourhood to support the proposed residential growth on site. Parks & Cemeteries is willing to consider dedication alternatives involving either on-site or offsite dedication of suitable land/park development. Cash in lieu of land would comprise the balance of the dedication requirement. (unchanged) c. There is little active public parkland in the immediate neighbourhood and provision of on- site amenities suitable to all ages including children's play facilities, will be critical to this proposal. The site plan, shadow studies and wind studies should be updated to accommodate on-site amenity spaces. (unchanged) A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community 18 PA of 387 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form d. There have been discussions between the developer and Parks & Cemeteries regarding dedication of nearby, off-site land for parkland purposes. Should suitable land be acquired by the developer, this option for parkland dedication could include the construction of park infrastructure. (unchanged) e. 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 Site Plan Approval and accommodating the existing units on-site and the parkland dedication paid for SP19/108/L/BB. (unchanged) 3. Comments on Submitted Documents a. Urban Design Brief i. There are numerous references to enhanced/engaging/attractive streetscapes with new landscaping and no anticipated shadow impacts (pdf pg 12). How will required on-site landscaping be provided with a proposed front yard setback of 0.15m? The ability to provide public landscaping within the right of way will also be restricted with this significantly reduced setback. An increased front yard setback should be provided along Lancaster St W. ii. Some commentary is provided in Section 2 regarding proposed outdoor amenity space, and this should be revised to include a commitment to providing not only passive recreational activities and seating but also active/play features suitable for all ages and abilities. A commitment to achieve, as a minimum, the amenity and play standards contained in the Urban Design Manual should be provided and conceptual images of amenity features included. Amenity Space Private and common amenity areas will be proposed to accommodate passive recreational activities and seating for residents. Ground floor commercial units in the form of Live/ Work units with private terraces are proposed in Buildings B & E. Each residential unit will feature an exclusive use balcony and or terrace. Additional amenity space will be provided through a roof top terrace on Building B. A large common amenity is proposed on the fourth floor on top of the parking structure between building C and D. An at grade amenity is proposed to the rear of building E. iii. There is existing City -owned civil infrastructure at the eastern property line and there are easements in place protecting this infrastructure. Construction of the proposed amenity space behind buildings C and is not typically permitted within easements iv. The preliminary wind study does not appear to have been updated to the current site plan A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community PP§ of 387 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form b. Addendum to the Planning Justification Report i. Appendix D to the report illustrates public park locations within a 1km radius of the site and includes many natural areas and City -level sports fields in addition to active neighbourhood park spaces in adjacent Planning Communities and in the City of Waterloo. With the exception of Lancaster Park, all active park spaces are beyond recommended walkshed distances for local park access, and this highlights the importance of providing robust on-site outdoor amenity spaces with good solar access and protection from wind. While this will be detailed as part of the site plan application, the PJR and the UDB should include a commitment to provide not only passive recreational activities and seating but also active/ play features for all ages and abilities. A commitment to achieve, as a minimum, the standards contained in the Urban Design Manual should be included and conceptual images of amenity features provided. ii. As this development will be constructed in stages, provision of and access to outdoor amenity space for residents of initial phases should be provided — is there a preliminary plan for construction staging for the development? iii. Physical dedication of off-site land as part of the park dedication requirements for this development will improve the overall neighbourhood supply of park land and help to alleviate the pressures the additional residents from this development will have on existing limited active park space. iv. The PJR has not commented on how the proposed development will impact existing park/open space infrastructure and how the proposed development will provide adequate facilities on site given the limited public amenities in the immediate neighbourhood. Specific OP Policy references should be included, and specific proposed mitigation measures included. (unchanged) v. Text in both UDB and PJR documents should be revised to reflect the underserviced nature of the neighbourhood with respect to active parkland. (unchanged) 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan - Part C Section 8: Parks, Open Space, Urban Forests and Community Facilities • City of Kitchener Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Policy • City of Kitchener Development Manual • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law • Places & Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener • Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan • Urban Design Manual 5. Anticipated Fees: • Parkland Dedication as a condition of final site plan approval A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Paaw g—_ -M6 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Katie Wood Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 8:53 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Angela Mick Subject: RE: SBM -21-0455 Corley Development - 528-550 Lancaster St. - Servicing Feasibility Study Yes, both Engineering and Planning are ok with the proposed OPA/ZBA. Sincerely, Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood@kitchener.ca IOU From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:41 PM To: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca>; Angela Mick <Angela.Mick@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: SBM -21-0455 Corley Development - 528-550 Lancaster St. - Servicing Feasibility Study So, just to confirm: both Eng and Utilities do not have any concerns with the subject OPA/ZBA? Thanks, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca C Page 151 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Angela Mick Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 8:24 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: SBM -21-0455 Corley Development - 528-550 Lancaster St. - Servicing Feasibility Study Utilities water is good. From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:41 PM To: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca>; Angela Mick <Angela.Mick@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: SBM -21-0455 Corley Development - 528-550 Lancaster St. - Servicing Feasibility Study So, just to confirm: both Eng and Utilities do not have any concerns with the subject OPA/ZBA? Thanks, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca ME Vd IML J Y3 u_: I• 1" Page 152 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Mike Seiling Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 1:17 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) Attachments: Dept -Agency Circulation Letter -528-550 Lancaster St W.pdf Building; no concerns. Mike From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, October 4, 202110:24 AM To: 'joel.cotter@waterloo.ca'<joel.cotter@waterloo.ca>;'Hodgins, Allan (MTO)' <Allan.Hodgins@ontario.ca>; _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon- Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood <theywood@grand river. ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning<PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman @kitchener.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) Please see attached - additional documentation is available in ShareFile. Comments or questions should be directed to Andrew Pinnell (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 153 of 387 N* Region of Waterloo Andrew Pinnell Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Pinnell, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionotwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 226-752-8622 File: D17/2/21010 C14/2/21015 January 30, 2023 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/010 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/015 — 2nd submission 528, 544 and 550 Lancaster Street West MHBC Planning Inc. (C/O Pierre Chauvin) on behalf of 550 Lancaster Inc. (C/O Corley Developments Inc.) CITY OF KITCHENER MHBC Planning Inc. on behalf of 550 Lancaster Inc. has submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 528, 544 and 550 Lancaster Street West in the City of Kitchener (referred to as the subject lands). Original Proposal: The applicant has submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to redesignate the subject lands from the Mixed Use and Business Park Employment Designation to the Mixed Use Designation and has requested a Special Policy Area to allow a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 5.8 (whereas a maximum FSR of 4.0 is permitted). Furthermore, the applicant has requested a maximum building height of 83 m (26 storeys) whereas a maximum height of 25 m (8 storeys) is permitted. The Zoning By-law Amendment is proposed to re -zone the whole of the lands to MIX -2 and to modify the site-specific provisions to allow an FSR of 5.8 (whereas a maximum FSR of 2.0 is permitted), a building height of 83m (26 storeys) a parking rate of 0.72 spaces per unit as well as additional provisions. Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 154 of 387 Current Proposal: The applicant has resubmitted the application for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to redesignate the subject lands from the Mixed Use and Business Park Employment Designations to the Mixed Use Designation. A Special Policy Area has been requested on the entirety of the subject lands to allow a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 7.5 (whereas a maximum FSR of 4.0 is permitted). The applicant continues to proposed four new buildings in addition to Building A (10 storey building nearing occupancy). The additional four buildings now are proposed as Building B (12 - storey tower atop a 6 -storey podium fronting on Lancaster Street West with rooftop amenity area), Building C (30 -storey tower atop an 8 -storey podium), Building D (30 - storey tower atop an 8 -storey podium) and Building E (18 -storey tower atop an 8 -storey podium). Two vehicular accesses are proposed from Lancaster Street West. The Official Plan Amendment is still required to permit the redesignation of the lands from the Mixed Use and Business Park Employment Designation to a Mixed Use Designation with a Special Policy Area to permit an increased FSR of 6.74 and a maximum building height of 96 m (30 storeys). The Zoning By-law Amendment is required to rezone the whole of the lands to MIX -2 and to modify site-specific provisions to allow an FSR of 7.5 (whereas a max. FSR of 2 FSR is permitted), a maximum of 30 storeys (whereas a maximum of 8 storeys is permitted), permit a maximum building height of 96 m (whereas a maximum building height of 25 m is permitted), permit a maximum number of storeys in the base of a midrise or tall building from 6 to 8, permit a minimum number of storeys in the base of a midrise or tall building from 3 to 0 and permit a minimum front yard setback of 0.15m (whereas a minimum of 1.5m is required). Other site-specific provisions have been requested (including parking and fagade provisions). 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 designated Mixed Use Corridor and Business Park Employment in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Planned Community Structure The Urban Area designation of the ROP has the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support major growth and social and public health services (ROP Section 2.D). The ROP supports a Planned Community Structure based on a system of Nodes, Corridors and other areas that are linked via an integrated transportation system (ROP objective 2.1 and 2.2). Components of the Planned Community Structure include the Urban Area, Nodes, Corridors and other development areas including Urban Growth Centres (UGC's) and Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA's). 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 Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 155 of 387 reurbanization include Urban Growth Centres, Township Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes (ROP Section 2.13). This proposal is for a higher density development on a City Urban Corridor. This development proposes to contribute higher density within the Built -Up Area of the Region and the City of Kitchener. Regional staff further note that the site is located on Regional road that is a Planned Cycling Route and a Planned Transit Corridor that links directly to the Region's Rapid Transit System within the Regional Official Plan. Employment Conversion The subject lands are currently designated Mixed Use and Business Park Employment according to the City of Kitchener Official Plan. In addition, the lands designated Business Park Employment are considered protected employment. As per policy 2.2.5.9 of the Growth Plan, the conversion of lands within employment areas to non - employment uses may be permitted only through a Municipal Comphrensive Review Process (MCR Process). Through the Region's ongoing MCR process, Regional Council endorsed the proposed Regional Employment Area (REA) in April of 2021 which excluded the portion of the subject lands from the Region's Protected Employment Area. Regional Employment Areas and corresponding policies were adopted by Regional Council in August 2022 through ROPA 6 which has been sent to the Province for a decision. ROPA 6 has also been posted to the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO). Based on the above, Regional staff have no objection to the redesignation of these lands to non -employment uses. In addition to the above, Regional staff wish to advise the applicant of the following technical comments related to the proposal: Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage staff have received and reviewed document titled "Stage 1-2 Archaeological Property Assessment Lancaster Apartments" (AMICK, July 9, 2020) and have received the corresponding Ministry Acknowledgement Letter and have no further comment or objection to this proposal. Record of Site Condition There are high environmental threats on an adjacent parcel of land according to the Region's Threats Inventory Database. Due to the proposed density increase of a sensitive land use on the subject lands, 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 (Section 2.G.18 of ROP). Since the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter were not received as part of the Complete Application, the Region shall require a Holding Provision be implemented as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment 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. The following wording is required for the holding zone: Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 156 of 387 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. 153/04, 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. Please ensure all lands that are to be dedicated to the Region are excluded from the RSC. Corridor Planning Road Noise Review.- The eview:The Region has received the Noise Feasibility Report entitled "Noise Feasibility Study Proposed Residential Development 544-550 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario" completed by HGC Limited; dated May 26, 2021 and concurs with the transportation related recommendations contained within the report. The noise report indicated that the main source of road noise is transportation noise from Lancaster Street West (Regional Road #29) and Highway 85 and that noise from these sources exceed the Regional and Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Noise limits. The report recommends mitigation in the form of the installation of air conditioning, special building components for walls, windows and doors and the use of noise warning clauses to mitigate road noise on the subject lands. The report further recommends that a detailed study be prepared once detailed plans are available for each building. The following recommendations shall be implemented through the site plan applications for each building and a Registered Development Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo through a future Consent or Condominium Application shall be required. The Registered Development Agreement shall implement the following: 1. The developer agrees to implement the transportation related recommendations of the report entitled "Noise Feasibility Study Proposed Residential Development 544-550 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener", prepared by HGC Limited, dated May 26, 2021, and further agrees that: 2. All Buildings/Units (Buildings B, C, D and E): a) The building/units shall be designed and installed with an air -ducted heating and ventilation system; b) The building/unit(s) will be installed with a central air conditioning system, prior to occupancy; c) The building/unit(s) will be designed and fitted with special building components (i.e. special windows, doors and walls, etc.) to achieve the minimum STC values described in the following table: Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 157 of 387 Table 10: Summary of Noise Control Requirements and Noise Warning Clauses Building Acousticx�Builtlin� Types of Ventilation Requirements Warami g Glazing STC1,= Barrier Clauses Requirements Building B - stir Conditionmg k B, C STC -31 Building C Air Conditioning A, B, C STC -30 Building D — Air Conditioning k B, C STC -30 Btulding E -- Air Conditioning A, B, C STC -29 Amenity Areas — — STC -30 Note: — No gxcific requuenient. • All mechanical egmpment associated u-ilh the buildin p should be designed such that their samd emissions to the outdoors is compliant with MKF Cruidelme NFC -300 at all the other buildings and in the =a ndimr neighUnirhood *' 9 hen detailed floor plans and b ddimg elevadons are arvailable_ window glaring requirements -::mild be refined based on sono] vandmv to floor area .­jos. d) The buildings/units (B, C, D and E) facades shall be installed with glazing with minimum STC values indicated in the following tables: Table 4: Required Minimum Glazing STC for Building B Facade Space Glazing STC1,= North LivingDiimi g OBC Bedroom OBC East Litiing'Ditog OBC Bedroom OBC South Liv tig Diking STC -31 Bedrooni STC -30 West Living During STC -30 Bedroolui STC -30 Table 5: Required Minimum Glazing STC far Building C and D Facade ----- SPIW [dazing STC'1,'- North Livuit~'Dinine OBC Bedroom OBC East Living Dining OBC Bedroom OBC South Living Dmin STC -30 Bedroom STC -30 West Living'Diiiing OBC Bedroom OBC Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 158 of 387 Table 6: Required Minimum Glazing STC for Building E Facade Space Glazing STCl,'- North Liv 1111 Dlnlna )BC Bech,00rti OBC East LivLiz Dining (-)BC' Bech,00lii (_)BC Soutli LiEilizDininz SIC -'c} Bech'ooiii STC -29 West Liv, is Dining STC -29 echoolii SIC -2c} Notes for Tables 4. i and 6- ' Based on ?0°,a window to floor area ratio for living dining rooms and 40°0 for the bedrooms. STC requirement refers to fixed glazing. Small leaks through operable doors and windows are assumed.. however. right weather seals should be provided to reduce such leakage to the extent feasible. DBC: — Ontario Building Code e) The following Noise Warning Clauses shall be registered on title for all units: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control features in the development and within the building unit, sound levels due to increasing air traffic may on occasion interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed sound level limits of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)." "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 Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). " Prior to the issuance of building permits for each buildings/unit(s) in the development, a Professional Engineer qualified to perform acoustical engineering services in the Province of Ontario will review the building plans and building elevations to refine glazing requirements based on actual window to floor area ratios to ensure that the noise control features as per approved detailed Addendum Noise Study/Updated Noise Study are incorporated in the building plans. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City's Building Inspector or a professional Engineer qualified to perform acoustical engineering services in the Province of Ontario shall certify that the approved noise control measures have been properly installed and constructed. As indicated above, a detailed transportation noise study shall be prepared for each building once detailed plans are available. Regional staff require a Holding Provision to be implemented to obtain a detailed transportation noise study and implementation Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 159 of 387 measures have been secured to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The required wording of the Holding provision is: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a detailed Transportation noise study has been completed and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Stationary Noise Review.- Regional eview:Regional staff have reviewed the stationary noise aspects of the noise feasibility study titled "Noise Feasibility Study Proposed Residential Development 544-550 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario" dated May 26, 2021, prepared by HGC Engineering Limited and have the following comments for review: Significant stationary noise sources in the vicinity of the site include existing commercial facilities to the north, south, east and west of the subject lands. The study determined that sound levels will be within MECP criteria at all of the proposed buildings on the subject lands. The study recommends the following implementation measures at this stage: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of the adjacent Commercial Facilities and residential roof -top and other Noise sources, noise from the Commercial Facilities and residential roof -top and other Noise sources may at times be audible." The above stationary noise warning clause and shall be implemented through a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener. In addition, the noise warning clause shall be included in all agreements of Offers of Purchase and Sale, lease/rental agreements and the Condominium Declarations. As the detailed design of the buildings has yet to be determined, Regional staff shall require a Holding Provision to be applied to the entirety of the subject lands to ensure a detailed stationary noise study has been completed and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Region. The required wording of the Holding Provision is: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a detailed stationary noise study has been completed and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the development on itself (e.g. HVAC system on the sensitive points of reception) and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. Transportation Impact Study: The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) recommended a dual left turn lane on Lancaster Street West (RR#29). A detailed plan with cross sections at critical points showing the building locations and available right-of-way after the road dedication shall be provided Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 160 of 387 for review to determine if the proposed dual left turn lane can be accommodated with the grading along this section of the road and property. Please coordinate all designs with Peter Linn, Project Manager for the Lancaster Street Road Rehabilitation Project. Peter can be contacted via PLinn(a)regionofwaterloo.ca. Furthermore, the Region requires confirmation prior to accepting the TIS whether there will be a pedestrian or active transportation connection to the Walter Bean Trail. It is difficult to tell from the plans and response provided whether the internal trail will connect to the Walter Bean Trail. In addition to the above, Items 9 and 11 of the TDM recommendations shall be addressed in the summary of circulation comments memo. Preliminary Servicing Report: A preliminary Site Servicing Feasibility Study dated May 26, 2022, prepared by Strick, Baldinelli, Moniz (SBM) has been reviewed and Regional staff have the following relating the study: a) The report indicates that storm flows will be attenuated post to pre -development levels. A preliminary calculation of the storm flows is provided to calculate the flows and pipe size of the storm pipe connecting to the Lancaster Street Storm Sewer. The report mentions that a detailed design will be completed at the site plan application stage with flows going into the Regional right-of-way attenuated to pre -development levels. The report is acceptable from a Stormwater Design perspective. b) The preliminary grading plan is not acceptable at the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage. The grading plan does not identify the lands that are to be dedicated to the Region and must be updated to show the existing and future property lines as well as the entirety of the Lancaster Street West frontage. c) A preliminary Servicing Plan must be provided to identify the required storm, sanitary and water connections to all the proposed buildings including the building under construction at 528 Lancaster Street West. Road Dedication and proposed front yard setback.- Regional etback.Regional staff understand that the concept plan provided shows the Region's Road dedication (approximately 3.916m) and a 0.15m setback from the new property line to building B. The Road Dedication can be deferred to the site plan stage, however Regional staff have concerns with the proposed setback of 0.15m as the 0.15m setback can lead to door swings, awnings and balconies to extend into the Region's Right of Way, which is not supported by the Region. Regional staff require the 1.5m front yard setback established within the Zoning By-law to be maintained. Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 161 of 387 Future Site Plan Application Stage.- Dedicated tage:Dedicated Road Widening.- Prior idening.Prior to the approval of a future site plan, a road widening dedication of approximately 3.96 m shall be required to be dedicated to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo at no cost and free of any encumbrance. An Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) shall determine the exact amount of road dedication through a draft R -Plan which shall be sent to the Region for review prior to Registration of the plan. Phase I and Phase II ESA reports were received and have been circulated to Regional staff. Regional staff has identified some concerns and determined that further work and remediation shall be required prior to accepting the dedication of lands. Comments have been sent to the Owner's Environmental Consultant with no response to date. This issue must be addressed prior approval in principle of the site plan. Please be advised that all lands to be dedicated to the Region shall be excluded from the RSC. Pending approval of the TIS and subsequent Functional Plans, any additional road dedication shall be identified on all plans submitted in support of the Site Plan Application and the widening shall be dedicated to the Region at the Owner's expense and free of encumbrance. Transportation Impact Study (TIS) & Access Regulation.- As egulation:As indicated above, further detailed plans and a cross section plan must be submitted with the TIS as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment. Pending acceptance of the TIS, the Functional plans, cost estimates and agreement to provide funds for any road and intersection improvements, including left turn lands shall be required and shall be at the Owner's expense. In addition, all road and intersection improvements for Lancaster Street West (RR#29) shall be completed by Regional Forces through a Regional Contract. Please be advised that all costs related to private entrances, including road improvements shall be the Owner/Developer's responsibility. In addition to the above, a Regional Access Permit is required for the proposed private and municipal street entrance on Lancaster Street West. All redundant entrances must be closed and the boulevard must be restored by the owner/Developer. An access closer permit must be obtained. Please note that there is currently a $230.00 fee for new/amended access, but there is no fee for the close of an access. It is recommended that the applicant check with Regional staff regarding the current fees at the time of submission. Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 162 of 387 Stormwater Management Report.- Pending eport:Pending acceptance of the Functional Servicing Feasibility Report as part of the current Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, a detailed Stormwater Management Report is required at the Site Plan Application stage. The applicant must submit electronic copies of the detailed Site Grading & Drainage Control Plan(s), and Site Servicing Plan(s) along with the Stormwater Management Report for Regional review and approval. This must include drainage details for the subject property, abutting properties and the public road allowance to ensure compatible drainage as well as all proposed connections to the municipal storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain as well as detailed erosion and siltation control features to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Finally, please be advised that site must be graded in accordance with the approved plan, and the Regional Road allowance must be restored to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Transit Planning/Transit Infrastructure.- The nfrastructure:The existing two routes (Route 5- Erb and Route 6 -Bridge) along this section of Lancaster Street West will continue over the long term. Based on the proposal, Transit stop No. 2021 located to the north of the subject lands will be relocated adjacent to this site and will be upgraded with a shelter and concrete pad. The applicant is required to construct or provide funds for the construction of a shelter and concrete pad at the stop and will be provided with the applicable finds at the site plan stage. It is anticipated that a transit easement will not be required and the transit stops will be accommodated within the Regional Road right -of way with the dedication of the land to the Region. Further details regarding the location, specifications and pricing for the bus stop landing pad and shelter will be provided through the future site plan application. Site Servicing/Work Permit/Municipal Consent: Detailed Servicing Plans shall be required for Regional Approval through a separate process of Municipal Consent. This shall be required for any proposed new services and update to the existing connection. A Regional Work Permit must be obtained from the Region of Waterloo prior to commencing construction within the Region's right-of- way. The permit can be found here: https://rmow.permitcentral.ca/ . Region of Waterloo International Airport.- While irport:While the proposed development is located outside the Airport Zoning Regulated Area (AZR), NAV Canada requires to be informed of any buildings that are above 30.5m (100ft) the existing ground level. The applicant shall complete and submit a Land Use Submission Form to NAV Canada. More information as well as the Land Use Submission Form can be found here: httas://www.navcanada.ca/en/aeronautical- information/land-use-program.aspx . Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 163 of 387 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, there should be an agreement in place with conditions. The conditions should establish the income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes as well as conditions on how long those units need to remain affordable. A security should be registered on title to ensure the affordable units are maintained over the term of the agreement. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit (based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan), the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $368,000 annual household income for low and moderate income households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the $487,637 regional market area 1 -Bedroom: `Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2020). In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house price is $368,000. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit (based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan), the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual household income for low and moderate income $1,420 renter households A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent Bachelor: $863 (AMR) in the regional market area 1 -Bedroom: $1,076 2 -Bedroom: $1,295 3 -Bedroom: $1,359 4+ Bedroom: $1,359 *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2020) Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 164 of 387 In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above. Fees By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the review fees of $6,900.00 (received September 30, 2021). Required items to be Addressed at This Time Based on the above, Regional staff require the following to be satisfactorily addressed prior to being in a position to support the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications: 1. Further information is required to address the TIS comments above; 2. The preliminary grading and servicing plans must be updated as per the above comments; and, 3. The 1.5m front yard setback between building B and E and the future property line must be maintained. Conclusions Once the above has been addressed to the Region's satisfaction, the following must be implemented within the Zoning By-law: 1. The Region shall require a Holding Provision (H) Zone on the subject lands until the RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter related to the RSC have been received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The required wording of the Holding Provision is: 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. 153/04, 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. 2. That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a detailed transportation and stationary noise study has been completed and implementation measures addressed for each building to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential impacts of the development on itself (e.g. HVAC system on the sensitive points of reception) and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses. Please note 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. Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 165 of 387 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. Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning (Applicant) Document Number: 4296131 Version: 1 Page 166 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Melissa Mohr <MMohr@regionofwaterloo.ca> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:41 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Garett Stevenson; Tina Malone -Wright Subject: RE: 550 Lancaster St W - Final Revised Site Layout - Feb 18 Attachments: DOCS_ADMIN-#4296131-v1-Regional_Comments_(2nd_Submission)_-_OPA_21_10 _and_ZBA_21 _15_(528-550_Lancaster_Road_West_KIT). PDF Good Afternoon Andrew, Thank you for checking in on this matter. Please note that the Region can accept a holding provision to address the TIS, FSR/SWM and servicing approval through municipal consent along with requiring a holding provision to address the following: 1. RSC for the entirety of the subject lands and associated Ministry Acknowledgement letter; and, 2. Detailed Environmental Noise Study for road and stationary noise. I kindly ask for a copy of the draft zoning by-law amendment for review once it has been finalized. I have attached the Region's last set of comments on this file should you have any additional questions. Kind Regards, Melissa Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Confidentiality Notice: This email correspondence (including any attachments) may contain information which is confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) listed above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or have otherwise received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by replying via e-mail, and destroy all copies of this original correspondence (including any attachments). Thank you for your cooperation. Page 167 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Natalie Hardacre <Natalie.Hardacre@waterloo.ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 4:13 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) Attachments: Dept -Agency Circulation Letter -528-550 Lancaster St W.pdf Hello Andrew, City of Waterloo Planning staff have reviewed the notice for the development proposal and have no concerns, so long as no negative impacts with respect to shadow, noise, traffic, parking, environmental, etc. are generated by the development that could potentially create any adverse impacts to nearby City of Waterloo lands. Thank you. Natalie Hardacre, BES, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Approvals Integrated Planning & Public Works 100 Regina Street South, City of Waterloo PO Box 337 STN Waterloo, ON N2J 4A8 P: 519.514.0225 1 F: 519.747.8523 1 TTY: 1.866.786.3941 E: natalie.hardacre@waterloo.ca I www.waterloo.ca THE CITY OF M WcAerloo IMPORTANT: City Hall is open, with a small complement of staff to assist you. Appointments are recommended, and can be scheduled directly with the staff person or by emailing devservices@waterloo.ca or calling (519)747-8752. Most staff continue to work remotely, and are available virtually to assist you — please do not hesitate to reach out. Page 168 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca> Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 12:50 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) Hey Andrew, This is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment. Regards, r Trevor Heywood Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority theywood@grand river.ca f fPior From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, October 4, 202110:24 AM To: 'joel.cotter@waterloo.ca'<joel.cotter@waterloo.ca>;'Hodgins, Allan (MTO)' <Allan.Hodgins@ontario.ca>; _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon- Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; Chris Foster-Pengelly <cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson @kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) Please see attached - additional documentation is available in ShareFile. Comments or questions should be directed to Andrew Pinnell (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 ."If =V01011409M Page 169 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Johnston, Jeremiah (MTO) <Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.ca> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:52 AM To: Christine Kompter; Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: Notice of Public Meeting - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) Hello Andrew, I found Allan's response to your inquiry in HCMS, I am unsure if it was sent so I am resending it now through our system. "The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no objection to this application. The subject property is located beyond our limits of permit control and therefore MTO review, approval and permits will not be required." Thank you, Jeremiah Johnston Corridor Management Planner Corridor Management Section Ministry of Transportation Operations Branch West 659 Exeter Road, London, ON N6E 1L3 M: (226)-980-6407 From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: April 13, 2023 11:24 AM To: Johnston, Jeremiah (MTO) <Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.ca>; Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.PinnelI@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Notice of Public Meeting - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Hi Jeremiah. I've attached the inquiry submission for your reference. Andrew can respond as to whether any comments were received. Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca 000000000 i Page 170 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 5:24 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) Attachments: RE: Notice of (OPA/ZBA/SP) Pre -submission Consultation Mtg. - 528, 544-550 Lancaster Street West Good Afternoon Andrew, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the above application. Please see our attached comments from the pre -submission consultation which would still apply. Additionally, we have the following comment/condition to add: D) That the developer co-ordinate and reach an agreement with the Waterloo Catholic District School Board and Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region regarding the provision and maintenance of infrastructure for school bus pick-up and drop-off locations. If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, October 4, 202110:24 AM To: 'joel.cotter@waterloo.ca'<joel.cotter@waterloo.ca>;'Hodgins, Allan (MTO)' <Allan.Hodgins@ontario.ca>; _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon- Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood <theywood@grand river. ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning<PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman @kitchener.ca>; Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) Page 171 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: plan ninganddevelopment <planninganddevelopment@belLca> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 2:37 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) Hi Andrew, Thanks for the follow up. Bell Canada does not have any comments at this time. Thanks Ryan Courville Access Network Provisioning Manager I Planning and Development C: 416-570-6726 100 Borough Dr. FI. 5 Toronto, Ontario A-7nl From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: November 1, 202110:35 AM To: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments (528-550 Lancaster Street West) This email is a friendly reminder for you to please provide me with written comments regarding the subject OPA/ZBA application at your earliest convenience. Please see attached circulation letter, for reference. The next step the application process is to schedule a Neighbourhood Meeting, and it is important that I have your comments, in advance. If you have any questions about this project, please contact me. Thanks! Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca (tt Page 172 of 387 From: Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:15 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528 - 550 Lancaster I attended last week's neighbourhood meeting about the proposed Lancaster development. It did not change my opposition to this project, if anything it strengthened it. I've lived on Lang crescent for 34 years and until recently it's felt like a quiet, friendly neighbourhood. Recently we've come under attack by developers with the full approval of the city — 8 homes at Lang & Bridgeport, apartment buildings at Bridgeport & Lancaster and on Lancaster beside Tim Hortons. Why? Nothing presented at the neighbourhood meeting made me feel the traffic issues were being considered seriously. How will a potential center turn lane help people turn left onto Lancaster from Lang, General Drive or the new development? I'm very concerned about the increased traffic volume resulting in drivers using Lang as a shortcut from Lancaster to Bridgeport road. We're a narrow street with no sidewalks. Currently it's perfectly safe to walk on the road, even in winter, because we have so little traffic. A couple of times recently construction at the Bridgeport/Lancaster intersection led to such a high volume of traffic detouring down our street that it wasn't safe to go for a walk. I'm afraid of this becoming a permanent situation. One of the presenter's touting of the development as a 'gateway to Bridgeport' showed a complete lack of understanding of the character of Bridgeport. We are a small community primarily of older single family homes. The proposed development would be right at home in downtown Toronto but not in our neighbourhood. I hope my opinion and those of other area residents will be given serious consideration, Carol Foxall Page 173 of 387 From: Sent: Sunday, November 14, 20214:03 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster st West Hi Andrew, I just learned of the proposed monster development on Lancaster street and can't believe it's even under consideration. I live ato Lang crescent and this development will have a significant impact on me and my neighbours. We've already had to put up with the recent construction of 2 apartment buildings near the Lancaster / Bridgeport intersection and the conversion of a single home property at Lang & Bridgeport to an 8 house cul de sac. Has any consideration been given to the impact the thousands of new residents will have on the already overloaded road system in this area? Left turns out of Lang are already close to impossible during rush hour. I'm sure that the increased traffic volume on Lancaster is going to result in many drivers using Lang as a shortcut to the expressway instead of sticking it out to the lights at Bridgeport. Based on past experiences when our road was used as a detour, walking on our street will be dangerous, especially in the winter. What about the kids who have to walk down the street to get to school? Please add me to the circulation list for updates to this application. Regards, Carol Foxall Page 174 of 387 From: Gil & Ginny Eichler Sent: Saturday, October 23, 202112:36 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St. Development Hello Andrew, Thank you for sending us the information regarding the application for the development in our neighbourhood, and inviting us to submit comments. While we are very much in favour of increased housing being made available in our city and Region there needs to be serious consideration taken to the roads and traffic in the area before adding additional numbers to the already strained roads. We live on General Drive and have been here for almost 30 years. We enjoy this part of Kitchener and want to be able to remain living here and feeling it is safe. Vehicular traffic is a huge factor. The traffic on Lancaster increased steadily over the years to making it very high volume. At times, when there is a disruption on the expressway in the area resulting in a detour spill into the area, traffic has been backed up for miles making it difficult to get off of our street. Lancaster is the only outlet for General Drive. Lancaster is a major artery in this area. Additionally, since the round about was installed at the end of Bridge St by the Lancaster St bridge, there is no gap in the flow of traffic from that direction. This also makes it very difficult for us to get off of our street, often causing us to wait for some kind soul to stop and allow us to do so. We have discussed this challenging issue with our neighbours many times and are all finding it difficult to navigate safely off our street in a timely manner. Recently two new tall housing buildings have been added to the area at the corner of Bridgeport Rd and Lancaster St. ( one completed and the other under construction). The construction traffic and current residents have already increased traffic in the area. It causes traffic to back up for several lengths of time on each occasion. We don't see how the current road structure in the area can possible accommodate the amount of vehicular traffic that an additional 1,198 dwellings and some commercial use space will add. The stretch along Lancaster between Bridgeport Road and Bridge street is narrow and winding and often congested with steady traffic with the current amount of residents and traffic. While currently vehicular traffic loads and congestion are an issue, we do understand that the future is to reduce the use of vehicles. We prefer to walk or cycle however this area is not pedestrian or bicycle friendly. The narrow winding road does not lend itself to cycling and as such we do not feel safe on it. We have to drive our bikes elsewhere for safe cycling thus adding to the traffic. Pedestrian traffic is also a challenge. Currently there are several places of business on both sides of the road in that area but there is no safe pedestrian crossing in the long stretch between Bridgeport Road and the round about at the bridge. As a result people are crossing in between unsafely between the traffic, putting their lives at risk. We hope that your call for our comments is more than just part of the process, and that you and your team will take the comments of the local residents seriously. We respectfully request that an impartial Page 175 of 387 traffic study of both vehicular and pedestrian existing use be made, with recommendations, before any additional load is added. We look forward to hearing the results of such study and your recommendations. Thank you, Gilbert and Virginia Eichler Page 176 of 387 From: S M Sent: Monday, December 27, 202112:02 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St. W Attachments: 20211224_164032.jpg Hi Andrew, I received the attached notice from the city with your contact information I have also cc'd the ward council person. I live at E General, so very close to the end of General where the development is going in. I have 3 concerns with this project. Parking - almost 1200 unit and barely enough parking for half that capacity. General already sees a lot of overflow parking from the lancaster smokehouse and the park. This will only get worse. There needs to be changes made to this project that involve way more parking within the development or fewer units. This is not right downtown or right on the LRT. People are going to drive. And if the units are 2 bedrooms that could mean 2 cars per unit. When there is currently space for .5 per unit. Traffic - it is very hard to turn left out of General any time of day but especially rush hours. A center turning lane to be able to turn into may make this easier. Another problem spot that I feel has been overlooked is the off ramps from the expressway on Bridgeport. It is very hard and dangerous to turn left and often cars and trucks are back up for 10-15 min waits at rush hour. Having 1200 more units in this area will mean more cars. These off ramps would be a great spot for roundabouts or even lights. Play park on General - right now this small park is the only place for families to gather and have outdoor recreation in this area. The area is not very populated so the park is adequate. However if 1200 units are added this will increase the need for community space. I feel like if the developer wants to totally change this community they need to foot the cost of adding some recreational space. This will be peanuts to them but would go a long way to keeping this area nice. Either adding to existing park or having some common outdoor space withing their own development. Thanks for taking the time to read my input. I would like to stay involved and will be on the zoom meeting Jan. 20th. Scott Mast Page 177 of 387 From: Warren Gray Sent: Sunday, October 31, 202112:17 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St. W Hi Andrew, I took a look over the plans and studies for the proposed development at 528-550 Lancaster St. W. As a resident on General Drive, I'm concerned about the parking and traffic implications of such a large development, especially given that they appear to only have two driveways off of the stretch between General and Bridgeport. First, normal rush-hour traffic can make the left turn out of General extremely difficult and the roundabout at Bridge St. and Lancaster means that the flow of traffic is almost continuous. Lang suffers similar problems but has an alternative exit out onto Bridgeport, while General is effectively a dead-end street. Though the studies produced by the developer claim that they do not anticipate an increase in traffic to unreasonable levels through 2026, 1 can't imagine that adding even the proposed 700+ cars to this area is going to result in a positive experience for anyone. Second, the proposed development seeks to provide parking spaces for only 66% of the planned suites. The studies provided as part of the package found that similar buildings in similar areas showed that up to 75% of the suites had cars and specifically calls out that additional parking is available on General Dr and Lang Cres if needed. There is already a fair amount of regular street parking on General Drive and with only a single exit these can be a hazard for drivers and obscure pedestrians and small children. Public transit to this area is also relatively sparse right now, though I hope this would be relatively easy to fix. Additionally, having recently lived in a high-rise condominium in KW where 100% of the units were assigned parking spaces. additional parking was still in constant demand from residents. In speaking to a number of my neighbours, these two issues seem like the biggest points of contention. Please feel free to contact me if you've got additional questions. Thanks! Warren Gray Page 178 of 387 From: Stephen Woodworth Sent: Sunday, December 5, 20216:29 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St. W., Kitchener - Proposed Development Hi My name is Stephen Woodworth. My wife Sharon Woodworth and I reside at E General Drive, Kitchener- and we have an interest in the above -noted proposal, which will alter the character of our neighbourhood, created increased traffic flow on an already congested Lancaster Street, and threaten unwanted parking on our crescent. Please add both our email addresses to your distribution list ofr notifications relating to this proposed development. Thank you. Stephen Woodworth. Sharon Woodworth Stephen /ip Page 179 of 387 From: Aaron Bast Sent: Monday, October 18, 20219:47 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528 Lancaster Hi Andrew - My name is Aaron Bast and I live in the neighbourhood near this proposed Lancaster St. project (over by the roundabout at Bridge / Lancaster). I recently saw the application for this project and was really surprised to see something of this proposed scale on that site. I have some questions for you about the process and about the project in general. Could we schedule a brief call to discuss some of my questions and concerns? Also, if you could let me know the date and time of any application meetings that the public can attend. I'd like to get those in my calendar. Aaron Page 180 of 387 From: larry.pinkerton larry.pinkerton Sent: Monday, October 4, 20211:21 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St development Andrew I live close to the new development on Lancaster St W., on General Dr. It is already very difficult for us to exit General Dr onto Lancaster to due high volumes of traffic. Just wondering if you had considered this inconvenience to the residents of General Dr. Thanks Larry Pinkerton Page 181 of 387 From: Jennifer Neumayer Sent: Monday, November 22, 20215:27 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St W Hello, My name is Jennifer Neumayer and I live at E General Drive, in the Bridgeport area. I am writing to express my and my family's concerns over a proposed building project near my house. I was recently told by a neighbor that there's a plan to build a complex including one 10 storey building, one 16, two 20, and one 26. There are already two smaller apartment buildings nearby, near that Tim Hortons. But high rises of this size are unlike anything in this area. It would really change the character of this part of town, which has already undergone a lot of construction over the past few years. To build these towers will require the destruction of two houses built in the 1870s (544/546 Lancaster street). There are already so few of these older buildings in KW, and especially in the Bridgeport area. don't want to lose these pieces of our neighbourhood's history. When I visited Europe, I loved seeing how cities preserved their older buildings even in the midst of newer structures (ex. In London). In addition, Lancaster street is already very busy, especially during rush hour from 4 to 6. There were many times when the bus was late during this hour and I would walk to the next stop to keep warm while waiting. The cars were moving incredibly slowly, and I was walking faster than them. We don't need 1198 new units (as is the plan for the apartment complex) and each unit's owners' vehicles added to this already busy street. I've also heard they plan to create parking for these vehicles on General Drive itself. Yet, our street was not approached by the developers about this. I know I write for many of my neighbors when I express these concerns. Over the past week or two I've heard them sharing similar views. I hope this email will open up some discussion on the project. I understand the need to create dense housing (ie. Apartments vs houses which would occupy much more land) but I hope some consideration will be given to the size of these buildings. The size of the already existing apartment buildings in this area seems reasonable, and retains the "small" nature of our area rather than that of a busy downtown. Thanks for your consideration, Jennifer Page 182 of 387 From: Ryangaribaldi Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 1:07 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St W good afternoon gentlemen just a few more points to consider in regards to stopping the development @ 528-550 Lancaster St W Infrastructure cannot handle the additional 1198-2396(2 cars/unit) cars in addition to the 127-254 cars from the 127 units in the building currently under construction. (The building that is currently under construction will be 10 -storeys in height and will contain 127 dwelling units) - Lancaster St is already in need of repairs, from a sink hole beside the manhole @ general & Lancaster, the sunken pavement in front of Shell (that has been like that for almost a year), sunken pavement along Bridgeport Rd @ Leander PL where housing complex went in, had to call city & Region 2-3 times each to get fixed. - During last over-extended closure of Lancaster St, Lang Cres and General Dr became a complete nightmare due to closure. In addition, the contractor of the building in progress, extended the road closure so that they could land materials off big rigs without having to deal with the traffic on Lancaster St. Better planning on detour and signage will need to be done to ensure our neighbourhood is safe, especially Lang Cres due to the fact they're no sidewalks and multiple school bus pick ups, - General Drive needs a traffic light, especially with the amount of traffic that barely stops due to the roundabout @ bridge St, and especially if this complex goes in. Parking • -developer plans to build 1198 units amongst 5 buildings, yet Only putting in 808 parking spots?? On the low end they will have a lack of at least 390 spots (single car /unit), to the high end at a lack of 1588 spots(2 cars per unit), before any visitor parking. • - During the meeting the developer mentioned numerous times about pushing for tenants to use bikes and public transit. No bike lanes anywhere, no ION, no real bus routes either. • -They also said they are going to try and limit the amount of cars that the tenants have. I find this very hard to believe as the LOW-INCOME HOUSING (Bridgeport Rd and Lancaster St) has an average of 32 cars parked in their lot for 48 units, AND THIS IS LOW INCOME HOUSING!!! • -As well this project has mentioned commercial spaces on ground floor, again more traffic, and lack of yet more parking spots! • -The proposal calls for additional overflow parking on General Dr & Lang Cres, is completely unacceptable! Parking on these streets are limited to 3 hrs (from 6am-11 pm) based on bylaw, as well u cannot park on them during winter months from 2:30-6:OOam. So where are all these cars going to park?? Location -this massive project does not suit the neighbourhood. - It has virtually zero access to the ION route, as well has a lack of bus routes, therefore people will need cars (hence the parking & Traffic issues). -This scale of project is something that should only be considered along the ION system or at least somewhere with better infrastructure. For public transit users: Currently you would need to take the bus to waterloo town square just to access the ION. People that want to use public transit will not use based on current system Page 183 of 387 • -This type of complex is suitable for downtown cores or along the ION route, guess land was to expensive for the developer Traffic - Traffic survey was done June 2021 amongst Covid-19 lockdowns and reduced traffic flow due to people working from home. Provincial guidelines at the time were: June 11 ON entered step 1 of reopening, -Non-essential retail permitted at 15 per cent capacity, with no restrictions on the goods that can be sold; -Essential and other select retail permitted at 25 per cent capacity, with no restrictions on the goods that can be sold -Outdoor social gatherings and organized public events with up to 10 people; June 30 step 2. -Outdoor social gatherings and organized public events with up to 25 people; - Indoor social gatherings and organized public events with up to 5 people; -Essential and other select retail permitted at 50 per cent capacity; -Non-essential retail permitted at 25 per cent capacity; - Traffic survey is nil and void with regards to ACTUAL traffic on Lancaster St pre or post pandemic! Not to mention the low income housing apartment at the corner of Bridgeport Rd and Lancaster St.(which the developer kept eluding to being a church on the zoom call???) its been there for over a year and the traffic from that building was not included in the survey! • In addition to the traffic from this project, there's Already a massive project on going on Bridge St E, what is this project more housing? Historic the demolition or reallocation of the two homes from the 1870's, situated at 544-550 Lancaster St is appalling! There are very few buildings left from the old village of Bridgeport, and now because "These homes are only identified by the City as being of potential cultural heritage value or interest, and are not "listed" / "designated" under the Ontario Heritage Act " so They can be removed or demolished! The old grand hotel (another historic building in Bridgeport) was ripped down to put In a roundabout, this property has been left abandoned with zero interest from the city to update with tress, grass or anything, in fact the old concrete driveway/parking lot is still visible. Schools Has anyone consulted with the 3 small schools servicing this area? I believe most are at or close to capacity, or is the developer planning to only rent to families with no kids?? I sincerely hope the city does take into count the NUMEROUS neighbourhood residents that have voiced their concerns and attend the meeting in order to maintain the charm and quaintness of our small community, before allowing this massive project to ruin it all! There are many other well suited areas in the city for this sort of project, with much better infrastructure and transit options! Page 184 of 387 thank you R an Garibaldi Page 185 of 387 From: Veronica Taylor Sent: Sunday, November 28, 202110:17 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St W Veronica Taylor I strongly oppose the development of these units. I have lived in General for over 15 years and the amount of traffic is so frustrating. I can't turn left and must turn right Also overflow parking on General can't happen. There is no room, let alone all the children in the neighborhood. Please rethink this decision and look at the traffic bottleneck that will occur We are not ready. The infrastructure needs to be looked at first Regards Veronica Taylor Sent from my iPhone Page 186 of 387 From: Shawn Miller Sent: Friday, November 12, 202111:32 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St W. Hi Andrew, I am writing to you about the proposed housing development on Lancaster Street, between General Drive and Lanc Crescent. I've received information from a neighbour about the details of the development, and likely have the same concerns they have, those being increased traffic and parking. I don't expect answers to what I've typed below, it's more for your consideration. Trying to access or leave General drive is already difficult enough during the morning and afternoon drive times. Turning left from Lancaster onto General Drive is essentially impossible unless someone decides to let you cross the line of traffic. Leaving the street at those times is also blocked, oftentimes there is just a line of cars parked across the end of the street. I understand traffic surveys were done. Were they done after the apartment building at Bridgeport and Lancaster went up? Were they done during the pandemic, where there has been lower traffic in general? Was the traffic from the still under construction 8 storey build at the end of Lang Crescent taken into account? During the evening drive time, the bottleneck created by Lancaster near the bridge across the river can cause the traffic to back up along Bridge Street to almost University Avenue. The traffic coming down Bridgeport to Lancaster can back up almost as far as the expressway. I've not had to drive home from work in quite a while, but the drive time could sometimes reach close to 45 minutes around 5-6pm, where the drive would normally take about 15 minutes otherwise. ( coming from the U of W area. ) The extra 30 minutes is typically spent waiting in the two queues I've mentioned on Bridge Street and Bridgeport. As far as parking goes, I understand General Drive and Lanc Crescent are to be used as overflow parking for the buildings, and that there will not be enough parking for the residents themselves. I'm guessing the 3 hour parking limit still applies to our streets, so residents won't be using the street for parking, without parking violation. Is this overflow parking to be used by visitors to those buildings? If the visitors to those buildings are parking on those streets, where are the visitors to houses on General Drive or Lang Crescent supposed to park? Page 187 of 387 Thanks, Shawn Miller Page 188 of 387 From: Sent: Thursday, November 11, 202112:20 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St W We have been informed via our neighbourhood that the current development underway on the property of 528-550 Lancaster Street West is planning for significant development that will directly impact traffic in our area and with plans for overflows of parking that will specifically impact our neighbourhood and our street. Based on what I've heard I find it appalling that the city would allow consideration for the development of a property with such as large scale plan without having due consideration for the implications to the residents in the area or without any levels of consultation (none that we have been informed of) and to even consider a development moving forward that provides inadequate provisioning for parking (using street parking as a consideration where there is insufficient parking). The streets in this area are already such that trying to turn out of General Drive or Lang Cresent at busier times during the day is impossible due to traffic volumes and potentially adding another potential 1000+ vehicles is going to cripple the area. I would like to be engaged and involved going forward in any and all meetings and sessions related to the development of this property before there is any formalized approvals for this developer to proceed. Please ensure that engagement occurs and with sufficient time to ensure that members of the affected community can have an appropriate opportunity to attend any planned sessions. My contact information is as follows: Locheil Sparks Page 189 of 387 From: shirley.kirck119 Sent: Sunday, November 14, 20217:56 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St West Dear Sir, I am greatly concerned about the proposed development of many large apartment buildings on Lancaster Street. I am a homeowner on General Drive and this would have a huge impact on us. Traffic is very heavy during rush hour and this would worsen the bottleneck that we already experience. Visitors and contractors who come to our home already complain about the extra time and difficulty reaching our home during rush hour. In addition, we are very concerned about residents and their visitors parking on our street. This will greatly impact the homeowners of General Drive. We are also concerned about the removal of historical homes that are scheduled for demolition. The homeowners on General Drive must be notified and included in such planning. Please notify us of upcoming meetings and plans. Regards, Shirley Kirck Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. Page 190 of 387 From: Sara Heimpel Sent: Friday, November 12, 20218:45 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St. W. Dear Andrew Pinnell, I am a resident and home owner at M General Drive, Kitchener, which is in close proximity to this massive development planned on Lancaster Street. I have serious concerns regarding the inappropriateness of the scope/size of this development for this location. The numbers of cars and traffic volume alone are a critical issue. This narrow stretch of road which is single lane and an essential through way for many parts of the city, and our only access in and out of our neighbour, is already bumper to bumper for many hours of the day. My children cannot safely take their bikes or walk off our street because of the traffic volume (including a roundabout that is backed up for several blocks in both directions multiple times of the day. I cannot imagine the gridlock that will result from adding thousands of vehicles within a small stretch of this already almost impassable roadway. The size of this development looming over a pleasant residential neighbourhood of mixed housing (homes and small apartments) is not in keeping with the landscape of this neighbourhood. The scope of this development is more suited to a high-density area with access to excellent public transportation (such as our LRT), safe bike lanes, and walking pathways that actually allow for connection to main areas of the city. This neighbourhood has none of these things and not obvious space for developing them. Frankly, I also question whether this development really addresses the practical housing needs of this community. Please include me on any further notices regarding consultation or review of this project. Sincerely, Sara Heimpel Page 191 of 387 From: Dan Boisvert Sent: Monday, October 4, 20218:39 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St. W As a resident of the area for almost 30 years I am totally opposed. Traffic is already ridiculous. Bridgeport should be maintained as a traffic calmed community with a village setting as has been done with Belmont village. The growth and development in Kitchener is totally out of control. People should be losing their jobs over this kind of development. Dan Boisvert Sent from my Wad Page 192 of 387 From: Graham Day Sent: Thursday, October 21, 20217:31 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; pchauvin@mhbcplan.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster St.W. Dear Sir My comments on the proposed development of 528-550 Lancaster St. W. Development of this area was inevitable. I am surprised by the number of people you are attempting to accommodate here, but it all seems consistent with Kitchener's "many villages" strategy. My biggest concerns involve the proposed parking and traffic solutions. There seems to have been much effort put forth in studying and meeting the city's guidelines. While these numbers may make sense to planners on paper, they seem to contradict my experience from living in this area. This development is in a farthest corner of the city. There is good bus service, but it only runs on the half hour. People will not be willing to take the transportation regularly. The study suggests that the area is currently made up of 0.89 vehicles per household. I would suggest that residents of small apartments within older homes are the type of people who do not own cars, and that this would not necessarily hold for apartment building dwellers. The study further suggested that similar developments on proxy sites indicate a lesser demand for parking spots. Comparing this corner of the city with other more centrally located developments may lead to erroneous results. When someone lives in an out of the way location like Lancaster St. W., friends and visitors will require a place to park. The 73 suggested parking spots to meet the needs of the visitors for the eventual 1200 units, seem to be inadequate. The suggestion that Lang and General Drives could be used as overflow is perhaps the most outrageous suggestion in the whole study. Not to mention the difficulty of visitors being able to walk from their parked cars on Lang/General, to the apartment of their hosts. I feel the developer must take far more responsibility for visitor parking. The report also concludes that traffic, while busy, would flow adequately with only the addition of a third left turning lane. (No mention was made of where the land for this lane would come from).No traffic lights would be required. Most people who occupy these units will want to travel south (east bound) into the city. This means a left turn onto Lancaster from the building parking lot. Since the installation of the roundabout on Bridge and Lancaster, I have had difficulty turning right during morning Page 193 of 387 traffic. The possibility of turning left onto Lancaster during peak times is, I am afraid to say, laughable. I'm sure the planners would not be happy to experience this kind of avoidable stress at the beginning or end of a work day. In recent years it has begun to become increasingly ugly here. Bridgeport does not need the stress of this kind of planning. A serious reworking of the streets may be required if we are going to maintain orderly traffic around this size of new development. I would welcome greater space devoted to retail. The few lots across the street which no doubt will be developed in the future are not enough to meet the needs of all these residents. If you want to reduce traffic, you are going to have to provide needed amenities with greater convenience. Enough space for a grocery store would seem obvious to me. I - who have had no education in city planning:) Thank you for all that you do towards helping our city grow effectively. Graham Day Page 194 of 387 From: Mary Lou Miller Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 20218:28 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster Street W Hello Andrew: Writing to you today to express my concerns about the proposed development located at the above property address. I/we have been residents of ■ General Drive, Kitchener for over 28 years, and are the original owner(s). Over the years of residing here, I have witnessed many changes to the area formerly known as Bridgeport, most of them positive and needed, kudos to planning and development. Along with the growth came downsides, encroachment of natural habitats, animals losing their homes etc., but there has been up to this point, a comfortable balance. I strongly feel that the proposed development would be classified as detrimental to the health of our community -overcrowding the location with human use. The traffic situation on Lancaster and surrounding streets will become even more overcrowded and congested if the development is allowed to proceed as proposed. Currently, we can not turn left off of General Drive because of traffic volumes, the only current option is right turns majority of the time; during peak times, unless some good driver lets you turn right, it is impossible to get off of our street. In my opinion, the increase in traffic will not be accommodated on Lancaster Street. Finally, yet another loss of historic property!!!! Why? Not cool!! The city has a long storied history of destroying such properties, I feel the two homes in question are part of my neighbourhood and should stay as part of the landscape for years to come. In conclusion, I am opposed to the said development as it currently stands. Please keep me on your mailing list of updates and any future meetings. Thank you ahead of time. Sincerely, A very concerned, tax -paying citizen of Kitchener Mary Lou Miller Mary Lou Miller Page 195 of 387 From: van der velden Sent: Sunday, November 14, 202111:42 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster Street West Kitchener,ON Dear Andrew, As a resident of General Drive, I am vehemently opposed to the massive development being proposed for 528-550 Lancaster West. I have parcelled the opposition into three sections: Significant impact on the quality of life to the residents in the General Drive/Lang Crescent neighbourhood. General Drive is a dead end street with only one exit onto Lancaster which already puts the residents waiting for a infrequent breaks in the traffic to turn right after a significant wait; and turning left, especially for school buses with children has resulted in long waits and risking collisions (in fact, collisions have occurred) Previous construction (Tim Hortons, Affordable Housing complex, apartment complex next to Tim Hortons) has resulted in angry drivers (who ignored the No Exit sign -- and quite grankly have no choice once committed) speeding around our street or U - turning with complete disregard for the children playing on the street (there is a playground at the corner of General Drive and Lancaster); moreover, the city had to come and block the walking path to Lang Street as some drivers risked damage to their cars and used the path to exit onto Lang to get to Bridgeport Rd as they were so annoyed at being inconvenienced. We have been enduring the high volume of traffic from the Bridge Street roundabout for years (since progress on the Highway 7 reroute/ reconstruction has failed to materialize) -- typically, it takes at least several minutes to make a turn off of the General Drive -- this development will exasperate an already very dangerous traffic flow dynamic. Overflow parking from the Lancaster Smokehouse has already lead to residents losing spots in front or their homes; abandoned cars left after being at the pub during snow removal season has already resulted in a unplowed street. The noise from previous construction reverberated through the neighbourhood and given the size of the proposed development it will make it impossible to enjoy spending time outside our homes. Significant impact on the wildlife and disruption to the already endangered Conestogo River corridor The proposed development of large tower buildings is placed directly in the migratory path of song birds and water fowl following along the water and will result in the loss of what is already engangered (song birds) species. The Walter Bean trail is heavily used by hikers and the noise from the construction will force the wildlife away from their habitat and make a chance to enjoy nature impossible. Hertitage buildings Page 196 of 387 • There are two heritage homes built in 1873 that are slotted for removal from the site -- original to the town of Bridgeport where so little of its history has been preserved. High density accommodations do not belong along what precious little habitat still exists in this city and certainly not at the expense of another well established neighbourhood. Jan (Willwerth) and Andy van der Velden Page 197 of 387 From: SURESH VENKATACHALAM Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20212:01 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 528-550 Lancaster Street West Good Afternoon Andrew, Hope all is well. I am interested to appeal against the grant of the Plan to make changes to 528-550 Lancaster Street North. I have taken a quick look at the documents on teh Kitchener website and have some different points of view from what has been submitted as studies by the various agencies. I am sure many residents of this old neighbourhood have the same concerns. Can you share with me the process to make a formal appeal for re -consideration and a renewed study for certain elements like Traffic flow etc taking into account the low traffic in COVID-19 days. The lack of parking space in the development is a major concern especially since the two neighbouring streets have been designated as Temporary parking with no consideration to current residents, safety of people crossing the road and traffic congestion. I would like to get a chance for myself andenighbourhood residents to voice our concerns for rectifiation by the developer. Best Regards Suresh Venkatachalam Page 198 of 387 From: Ruth Marzinko Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202112:10 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic; Walter Marko Subject: [EXTERNAL] 544 Lancaster St. development application Earlier this morning, I received a letter in the mail, from a resident who lives in one of the old rental houses at this address. She/he, is advising the neighbours in this area and on my street, Lang Cres., of this development - 5 condo buildings, 26, 20, 20, 16 and 10 stories high, Nov. 1 is the deadline for comments to the city planning department. I phoned Mr. Pinnell to get a confirmation about this and he gave more information about the meeting and I am waiting for more meeting information by email from him. To date we have NOT received any information about this development or the developments already completed on Lancaster and Bridgeport Rd. this last year. We judge this as being a very thoughtless action by the city of Kitchener. We have been cut off from access to Lang Cres. from Lancaster St. and at times from Bridgeport Rd. several times due to construction, and the traffic has been steadily increasing on Lancaster and Bridgeport Rd. ever since the Bridgeport Rd has been extended to Victoria St,. This new proposed development will only make things worse. It will also disrupt the wild -life in that area and I am not sure what damage it will do to the underground streams/watertable in this area as well. If this proposal goes through we may have to sell our home and look for another residence and hope that we do not lose value of our home because of this development. We have lived here since February of 1983 and so far have enjoyed a peacefull existance. We would like to continue living here and so we are stating a very firm NO to this development. Please send more meeting information to me at and to my husband Walter at and any printed information to Walter & Ruth Anne Marzinko Thank you for your attention to this request. Anne and Walter Marzinko. Page 199 of 387 From: Kaitlyn Mains Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20213:07 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Berry Vrbanovic; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 544 Lancaster street west, kitchener To whom it may concern, I live in Bridgeport village, specifically on Lang crescent and I am reaching out to voice that I do not support the building of the development that is scheduled to be built at 544 Lang crescent. There are a number of reasons why: 1) the neighborhood and it's rounds were not developed for the number of people that would be living in these condos 2) 1 personally live on a street without side walks with a speed limit of 50. This new development will bring a lot of traffic with it making the neighborhood less safe for my children 3) these buildings will be an eyesore in the historical Bridgeport village 4) the grand river is an important watershed and I have serious concerns about destroying the wetlands and what will happen to the animals that call it home I also have strong concerns that this was not something we have been alerted to until a neighbor told us. Please do not approve this development! Kaitlyn Page 200 of 387 From: Helen Szymkiw Sent: Sunday, October 31, 20212:42 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Development in my my Neighbourhood - my comments Dear Mr. Pinnell, My name is Helen Szymkiw and I live at E Bridgeport Road in Kitchener, which is near the corner of Lancaster. This is part of what used to be Bridgeport. I have lived in Bridgeport all of my life and here since I was three months old. I grew up here, I went to school and church here and have participated in many activities in our village. My family bought groceries at Shane's store, we picked up our mail at the post office beside it, we paid our bills to the Village, we banked at the Bank of Montreal (on Lancaster Street) and when we got a library, I was one of the first kids to sign up. I could move to another place, but I enjoy living here because it has been a nice place to grow up and live in. It is close to everything that I could need. The highway is two minutes away, there are several grocery stores not too far away, there is a Walmart and pet store just up the street and the malls are 5 to 7 minutes away. The people are nice and do not cause trouble. They keep to themselves, but are friendly enough to say hello when they see you. This is what has made Bridgeport a nice place to live in. Times are changing and it is growing, which is inevitable because our population is growing and people need places to live in. But it needs to grow in the correct way so as not to change the atmosphere and ambiance of the Bridgeport neighbourhood. If I had received your postcard on April 1, 1 would have thought that this was an April Fool's joke. It is hard for me to understand how you can use that small parcel of land to put up so many buildings, especially such high buildings. This is not an area where we have such tall high-rises! We have only single or two-story homes and some businesses. Until this year, we did not even have five and eight story buildings in this area. Five and eight stories are acceptable, but these 20 and 26 story buildings that you are proposing would definitely be an eyesore in our neighborhood. This is Bridgeport, not Waterloo or Toronto! In 1973, before the Village of Bridgeport became amalgamated with Kitchener, Bridgeport (blue border) had a population of 2374 people in it. You are proposing to put more than that many people (because I'm sure some units will house couples and families) in a little tiny area (yellow on map), which is about five percent of old Bridgeport. These poor people will be packed in like sardines. What are you thinking? https://photos.app.goo.gl/CuekN2YekXpvwLzD7 There is also another, even more serious, problem that I am not sure that you are aware of totally, and that is the traffic situation. Bridgeport Road and Lancaster Street are busy most of the day. However, during rush-hour (morning, noon and late afternoon) Bridgeport Road and Lancaster Street are very, very busy and congested. At these times, it is very difficult for me to get in and out of my driveway, so I have taken to backing into my driveway so that I can see the traffic clearly and not get into an accident when I am leaving. However, when people decide to make U-turns on Bridgeport or to turn into my driveway to turn around, and I am backing into my driveway at the same time, this can create a very serious situation. This has happened to me more than once and if I had not been very careful and cautious, we could have had serious accidents. (The worst part is that some people feel entitled to be able to use my driveway to turn around in and get upset and start yelling at me because I am going into Page 201 of 387 my driveway.) When I am leaving, I also often have to turn right onto Bridgeport even if I need to go left, because it is very busy. I then turn right onto Lancaster, turn right on Hamel and right again on either Mackie or Leander, and then left onto Bridgeport from there. That is the safest way for me to get to where I need to go. It is also very difficult to make a left-hand turn from Bridgeport to Lancaster (northbound). If not for the advanced green light, it would be impossible many times to turn left at all. Luckily, there are times when the traffic coming from Riverbend Drive is not too busy. I have no idea where you expect the people from the new apartments to enter onto and exit from Lancaster Street during these busy times. If even only half of the units have cars, that would still be an additional 600 vehicles on the road there. Even if they would not all be coming in and going out at the same time, it would still be very busy for everybody, especially for the people living in this area now. Even if there were a road built behind the apartments that led to Riverbend Drive, that would just make the intersection of Bridgeport and Lancaster even busier and no one would ever be able to make a left-hand turn from Bridgeport to Lancaster. If we think it is bad now, it is nothing compared to what it could be if you went through with this proposal. Even widening Lancaster Street would not solve any problems because people would have to, at times, cross two or three lanes to go to where they need to go. This might just create more accidents because many people are often in a hurry here and don't look carefully. These are some of the major concerns and safety issues that I can think of now. I am sure that there will be many more in the future if and when construction commences. I am interested to know what the final proposal will be for this area. Please keep me informed of what is happening. I am all for building new homes for people, but I do not want our neighbourhood to turn into an eyesore and be the laughingstock of the region, and be unsafe for all of us who have lived here for years. I think we and our safety are just as important also. I'm sure that there can be a compromise to keep everyone happy and satisfied. Yours truly, Helen Szymkiw Sent from my iPad Page 202 of 387 From: Anna Dickerson Sent: Monday, November 1, 20219:01 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Bridgeport Condos Dear Sirs, We are writing regarding the development planned for 544 Lancaster Street West. We kindly ask that you reconsider this development and save our historic community from additional traffic, years of construction, misplacing wildlife, unusual wind patterns and huge shadows. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Anna & Guy Dickerson Page 203 of 387 From: jen schiedel Sent: Sunday, October 31, 20219:24 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Bridgeport/Lancaster development Hello I am writing regarding the proposed development at 544 Lancaster St West. My family and I live on Lang crescent which is just down the street from this proposed project. We were disappointed to see that we did not receive notice in the mail regarding this proposal, especially with your comment deadline being November 1st. With something so big that can affect our community we would expect people in your position to be honest and share the proper documentation. If it weren't for a concerned neighbour we would not even know about this. We have several concerns about the project and would love to know how these would be addressed: 1. Traffic on Lancaster is already quite busy. To exit Lang cres onto Lancaster is quite difficult with the flow of traffic. How would this be addressed? 2. Our kids go to Bridgeport public school and are considered walkers because of our distance from the school. The thought of them walking down Lancaster and Bridge with current traffic conditions makes us nervous, let alone adding 5 condo buildings and their added traffic. How would this area be made safer for pedestrians? 3. This development is very close to the Grand River. We have already noticed flooding on the fields across the river, how would this new development impact the river and surrounding wild life? There would be a lot less absorbable ground with a development like this, how would water run off affect our community? My family has been part of this community for over 50 years, with my grandparents building here and us having the opportunity to purchase from them. It has always been a quiet and family friendly area. The past few years have seen an increase in development and it has had an impact on the qualities that we fell in love with here. When construction is directed onto our crescent people speed through our roads, which do not have sidewalks, and I fear walking with my children and dog. I hate not feeling safe on my own road. Big trucks use our road to park and unload equipment, yet our road is not wide enough to detour around a parked vehicle. This leads to increased traffic and delays in getting to work and school. We would love to have more information and hear how you plan to address some of the concerns we have. We also hope that we actually receive information in the mail regarding this development. Please consider the affects you would be adding to our community before moving forward with this. Thank you for taking the time to read our email. The Schiedel Family Page 204 of 387 From: Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 9:26 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Bridgeport proposals One Bridgeporter's Opinion Hello Andrew, I understand the city is ever-changing and growing. However, Bridgeport does not need high rises, or increased population in the area as traffic is backed up enough already, which may prove dangerous if there is an emergency. This is a historic area of town. Read the newsletter as the history is documented. I know living space is needed, but how about we stay four storeys high or a reasonable limit. I know the height is desired as it will showcase the River, at a premium price for the view, this does not benefit those of us calling this area home. We cannot manage that much growth at this end of town, alternate routes are not available because of the River. In my opinion, as a Bridgeporter for 20 years, what we need is another access point in case of emergencies or in the event we have to evacuate; we do not need high rises. When the round -about spewed sewage, even though traffic could get through the bridge was not only shut down concrete barriers blocked the bridge preventing access to emergencies service. For those of us across the bridge we had to drive to Breslau or Maryhill to get to Kitchener or Waterloo. Let's keep the small town feel. Maintain our history. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns. I hope the City hears us and limits growth at this end of town. Please provide a copy of the decision. Joanne Buchholzer Page 205 of 387 From: Rick Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20219:56 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; berry.verbanovic@kitchener.ca Cc: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; berry.verbanovic@kitchener.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] BUILDING IN BRIDGEPORT I received a notice in my mailbox, not from the City of Kitchener but from a neighbour, which is gutless in itself on your part, advising me that you have big plans for Bridgeport in so far as buildings go at 544 Lancaster St. I am NOT okay with your plans for my community. I've lived here for 31 years, in this area my whole life, nigh on 60 years of age and I CANNOT BELIEVE what you are doing to Kitchener. Why is this area being punished like this? What did we do to deserve this endless assault of concrete on our city? Let me put it this way gentlemen, EVERYBODY I talk to is glad they are as old as they are, not closer to the beginning, but to the end because of what you are doing to our city. I don't exactly class those remarks as success do you? When people think being closer to death is preferable I believe I'd count your 'leadership' as failure. Utter failure. You keep building but I don't see any extra hospitals do you? You speak of minding our water usage then build enormous sky scrapers all complete with toilets and showers, all requiring water. You speak of climate change. Which holds the heat more the concrete you pour or trees and grass? Hypocrites you are, one and all. You don't care about the land or the people, the people who live here. If you were REALLY trying to be different why not say we were the greenest city, as in grass and trees, in all of Canada. Oh too late for that now isn't it. Also rain doesn't Page 206 of 387 absorb into concrete, it runs to the lowest possible level so when things start flooding that is on you too. I cannot wait until the next election because I want real leadership. People who will stand up for the people who live here, not the developers who run back to Toronto with their fists full of money while we have to live with the outcome. Shame on you all. I really and sincerely mean that. Donna Beilstein Warren Page 207 of 387 From: Lori Stephen Sent: Friday, November 12, 202110:37 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] 'Campus -style' project proposed at Lancaster Street West in Kitchener Hi Andrew, I read in the Waterloo Region Record about the development proposed for Lancaster Street near Bridgeport Road. I have concerns about traffic, since we already have issues with traffic on Lancaster Street. I am all for affordable housing but can we not spread out the high raises in Kitchener -Waterloo and ensure there is parking and guest parking for residences. My main concerns are: 1) Traffic on Lancaster Street - We already have an issue turning left onto to Lancaster St from General Drive. During peak times we are stuck in traffic already. Not everyone is back to work yet so it's already going to get worse before you even build these high rises. a) What are you doing about traffic volumes on Lancaster Road? Are you expanding Lancaster Road? b) Are there not emergency concerns? Would be interesting to know at 5pm with our volume of traffic if a fire truck, ambulance, police can squeeze in between two lanes of traffic on both sides that are not able to move. On General Drive Lancaster St is our only entrance and exit. c) If this is approved, will Lang and General Drive get lights so they can get off our street? 2) Parking - since there is currently no plan to ensure parking and guest parking is available for all residences, what is the plan for overflow parking? a) you cannot park on the streets in the winter. b) we already have vehicles parked on our street because most residences have kids with cars. Where do you expect our guests to park? These are just a few of my concerns, look forward to hearing from you on my concerns. Please include me on meetings discussions on this topic. If I am unavailable will these meetings be recorded so we can review at a later date? Thanks, Lori Stephen Page 208 of 387 From: Mike Palmer Sent: Thursday, October 21, 20219:49 PM To: Scott Davey Cc: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments re Application for Development - 528/544- 550 Lancaster St OPA21/010/L/AP Hello, My name is Mike Palmer. I live on General Drive and have done so for over 20 years. On October 4, 2021 we received a circular from the City informing us of an "Application for Development in your Neighborhood" and wanted to take the opportunity to give feedback. At the risk of sounding like the typical "NIMBY" I nevertheless would like to say on record that I would rather this development not proceed in its current form for the following reasons: Structure and Scale: The application requests an Official Plan Amendment "to increase the permitted Floor Space Ratio from 4.0 to 5.8 and increase the maximum building height to 83 metres." These requests represent an unreasonable 45% increase in the floor/space ratio allowed (a limit which is already stretched from the MIX -2 limit of 2.0 via "special provision 49") and, far more egregious and laughable, a 232% increase over the 25 -metre building height now allowed by MIX -2 zoning. Indeed, all towers in this Development -- a 270 -foot (83 -metre) tall tower, flanked by towers of 200+ ft (61 m), 160+ ft (49m), and 100+ ft (30m) -- completely blow through the existing 25m/8 -storey height zoning limit. Nowhere along the length of Lancaster -- from Victoria to Bridge -- is there anything even remotely close to structures of this size, density or type. This scale of development does not belong in this part of the "Lancaster Corridor." It is a distressingly common practice for zoning by-laws to be altered at the whim of developers pouncing on any available lot. But this request, for a Development so outlandishly out -of -scale for the existing neighborhood, really deserves extra critical consideration taking into account the very valid concerns of all stakeholders, including residents of adjoining neighborhoods. Zoning by-laws must not be so mutable that monied developers get whatever they desire. If I want to put a shed or a deck in my own back yard I have to follow zoning by-laws as they stand to the 'T' or face sanction. I would not be afforded a variance allowing an "outlandish" deck or shed structure on my property. We all accept this because the alternative to no or next -to -useless by-laws would be "back yard anarchy" where anything -- any structure, any level of noise etc -- goes and a civil society simply cannot abide by that. The optics of zoning by-laws only so malleable to those with money are awful and, honestly, foment cynicism, frustration and perhaps suspicion on the part of citizens exhausted with a political process that ignores their concerns and is increasingly seen to always favor the super -wealthy developer/investor class. If Council is truly considering this may I propose that this development (or ones like it) be postponed until such a development is proposed for, and built in, say, the heart of Deer Ridge or Hidden Valley? This precedent would demonstrate that zoning laws are indeed flexible for all and that there is not an unfair and disproportionate burden of densification placed on "middle income" neighborhoods like ours when it comes to densification. Page 209 of 387 Traffic: Having lived on General for 20 years I am very familiar with traffic on Lancaster and am unconvinced that the relatively rosy Transportation Impact and Parking Study (TIPS) report reflect the reality we already see here, let alone its projections of the impact the proposed development. I do not buy their assessment of post-COVID traffic volumes on page 15 of the TIPS report (i.e. that it is "plausible that traffic volumes may never reach pre-COVID levels...") I assert that traffic volumes are already approaching pre-COVID levels all over the region, including on Lancaster St., and we're not "post" yet. It is implausible that traffic in this corridor will not worsen dramatically in the coming years if the Region's growth forecasts come to fruition and adding 1200 dwellings between General and Lang will add massively to the misery. Bridge St and Lancaster are both two lane roads that reach practical saturation during morning and evening rush hour periods. Bloomingdale Rd and Bridge are used by countless commuters coming from Guelph and points north, with some continuing up Bridge to University but many others turning onto Lancaster and heading to Bridgeport or Victoria. I do not believe that the study accurately or realistically reflects the reality of (a) the pre- and presumably post -pandemic levels of continuous flow of high volume of southbound traffic during rush hours on Lancaster thanks to the roundabout at Bridge, and (b) the overall suitability of a low -bandwidth but heavily traveled thoroughfare like Lancaster being further burdened by the traffic associated with an additional 1200 dwellings in the sensitive area between Shirk and Bridgeport. I could be incorrect but do not believe that the TIPS report considered the additional vehicular traffic that will accompany the current 8 -story building going up next to the Tim Horton's nor the future "affordable" housing option still to be erected at the corner of Bridgeport and Lancaster. A pedestrian trying to cross Lancaster or a driver turning left out of General, Lang or Shirk is stymied given the volume of traffic and the crowding behavior most drivers exhibit, something not revealed in the TIPS report. Danger to pedestrians and drivers increases when one "noses out" into traffic in an attempt to cross or make such a crossing or turn. And yet the TIPS report concludes that "traffic control signals are not warranted' at Shirk, General or Lang. Even as things now stand I disagree with the assessment and believe that the addition of nearly thousand cars in the area -- not just passing through but looking to transact with north- and south -bound traffic on Lancaster -- is only going to make that much, much worse. As noted in the TIPS report, the addition of these structures and the 1198 dwelling units requires 1378 parking spaces to comply with existing zoning by-laws. If we allow that the estimate of 66% take -rate is accurate, that still means up to —900 cars potentially leaving and entering that development in the morning and evening, most likely turning left out of the development onto Lancaster heading toward Victoria or Bridgeport. It would make far more sense to me if the entrance to this development was via Bridgeport Rd E/Riverbend on the east -side of Lancaster, especially if that part of Bridgeport were increased to four lanes to match the road on the west side of Lancaster. It may be necessary to think about traffic control lights or a roundabout for such an interchange since Riverbend also gets quite busy during rush hour. Construction and Staaina: Unless all construction traffic enters and exits the site off Bridgeport/Riverbend, the years of construction and staging -- trucks bringing concrete, steel, prefabricated components, heavy equipment, materials and other supplies to and from the site, tracking mud, dust, dirt and rocks onto Lancaster -- will undoubtedly bring a severe nuisance to those living in this area through noise, dust & dirt, gravel, rocks and traffic snarling. Winter will make this even worse. Page 210 of 387 We have already seen an increase in heavy dump truck traffic in this area lately as they travel to and from the construction happening on Bloomingdale Rd to the Parkway via Lancaster and Bridgeport and the noise and dirt and traffic disruption is already notable. Loss of Mature Trees and Foliage: The lots under consideration are populated not just by century homes but also by a diverse population of large, mature trees with healthy crowns providing shelter and habitat to birds, squirrels and other wildlife. Nowhere in the Arborist Report is the term "habitat" used. Why? We can roughly estimate a tree's age based on its DBH (figures given in the table in Appendix 1 of the Arborist Report) and a term known as the "Growth Factor" and it appears the ages of at least some of these trees to be in excess of 100 years. The accepted method to estimate a tree's age is based on multiplying the DBH by a species' Growth Factor: To use one example, the tag #20 (formerly 248) is a horsechestnut with a stated DBH of 120cm or 47.2 -inches. The growth factor for that species of tree is 8.0. Multiplying the stated DBH by the growth factor results in an age of 378 years. If we assume that there is an error in the report -- perhaps we say that this tree cannot be nearly 400 years old -- and that the column label for this column in the table should actually be circumference at breast height or "CBH" and not DBH, then we need to adjust the column value to convert from circumference to diameter by dividing by PI (3.14159). A 120cm (47.2 -in) circumference divided by 3.14159 gives a corrected DBH of 15 -inches which, when multiplied by the growth factor of 8.0 for this species, still gives a tree that might be 120 years old. Tree #23 , also a horsechestnut, is 110cm and, using the latter calculation, might be 110 years old; #26 is a black walnut that might be nearly 60 years of age. If the table as presented is correct -- the figures shown in the DBH column are actually DBH -- then tag #20 really could be 378 years old; #23 could be 346 years old and #26 177 years old. I think that the potential for some of these trees to be in excess of 100 years old -- and potentially much older -- demands that the Arborist report be re -reviewed to understand and correct any errors that may be present and to amend to the table a column showing estimated age of each tree to present a fuller picture of what will be lost if they are removed wholesale for the development. I implore you to consider the wording of the Tree Conservation By -Law of Kitchener that includes, in part: minimizing the destruction or injuring of trees, protecting, promoting and enhancing the aesthetic value of trees and sustaining a healthy natural environment. Parking: The current zoning by-law requires 1378 parking spaces but the development application shows only 808 spaces allotted, a 41% shortfall. The TIPS study infuriatingly suggests that "[s]hould the site's parking demand exceed the supply, on - street parking on Lang Crescent and General Drive is available within 200 metres of the subject site for short-term parking needs." No, I don't think so: I strenuously object to the blithely -stated "option" of having cars associated with the development's residents and visitors clogging our residential street. This suggestion is completely unacceptable and I would demand that the city reject this variance request. I think it naive to assume that such parking will be "short-term." I'm comfortable stating that there will be many dwellings in need of multiple vehicles because "he" works in Toronto and "she" works in Guelph and existing transit to the train and bus stations is inadequate for their needs. Please do not normalize this by accepting that such overage can be accommodated by our narrow residential street. Page 211 of 387 The developer claims that the height overreach variance should be granted because of Policy 15.D.4.1.20, justified because they are, in part, providing underground parking. But they're not providing enough parking to meet the needs of their future residents nor existing by-law requirements. In other words, despite failing to satisfy the existing by-law regarding parking spots they nonetheless think they've done enough to warrant justification of a 232% variance in height. This, in all good conscience, cannot be allowed. It strikes me as asinine of (a) the developer to make a claim for a colossal 232% height variance using parking as part -justification while not actually providing enough parking and (b) the TIPS author(s) to suggest that established and quiet residential streets are up for grabs in a first-come, first -serve parking lottery for development residents and their visitors. General Drive often sees residents and visitors parking on both sides of the street and when this happens, what is effectively a single lane of traffic is available for cars and trucks to navigate the road. If two cars are heading in opposite directions, one must duck into any available open spot or driveway to allow the other to pass. This also presents a hazard children and pedestrians in the area. While we accept this as inevitable for people that live on this street and we trust that the safety of children and pedestrians is of high priority to people that live here, the same cannot be assumed for people parking on these streets out of necessity because there's insufficient parking where they live. The push to move residential speed limits from 50 to 40kph illustrates that we already see hazards to safety on such streets; we cannot make this worse by allowing spill-over parking from this development. Where else in the city is this deemed acceptable? And, out of curiosity, what happens in the winter when overnight parking is not allowed (2019-113, part V (3)(xiv)) period? Or during snow events? What will residents of the development do then, having become accustomed to used to using our streets to store their vehicles? Public Transit: Buildings of this size and projects of this scope are usually placed along well -serviced public transit routes, as we have seen, for example, along Charles and King streets. Lancaster is not one of these, especially since it is far removed from the LRT and GRT bus service is infrequent. If we assume that, say, half the population of the 1200 units in the development need to use public transit, is it the expectation that we will see throngs of hundreds of people standing at the southbound bus stop across from the development or milling about in the parking lot of the neighboring Smokehouse waiting for infrequent buses that will carry away at -best 50 or 60 at a time? As there is no room on the boulevards for such gatherings so does that mean they will spill onto private property? How will they cross Lancaster to get to the southbound stop? Will there be a pedestrian crossover that will further clog already heavy traffic during rush hours? Or, worse, people just dashing across when they can? This is going to be a nightmare and it will encourage people to use their own cars, making the aforementioned traffic and parking problems that much worse. Conclusion: I fully understand the requirement for housing and densification in the Region. However, the developer in this case is proposing a project vastly out of scale with the established neighborhood, out of scale with transit and traffic bandwidth capabilities and shockingly out of scale with several important zoning by-laws. Page 212 of 387 The proposed destruction of numerous very mature trees and virtually unspoiled nook of habitat for wildlife is saddening and unbecoming in these times of increased green awareness, appreciation of the "aesthetic value of trees" and "sustaining a healthy natural environment." I have outlined no less than three explicitly non -trivial variations requested by this developer: an FSR increase of 45%, a building height overage of as much as 232% (and every other building in the development over that by-law if by lesser amounts) and a parking allotment 41 % less than that required These cannot be ignored or minimized as somehow trivial or acceptable. Zoning by-laws exist for a reason and they should not be so mutable as to really serve only the real estate developer class. We know zoning by-laws so fluid in neighborhoods of great wealth and influence: Do I really need to ask what would happen to these variance applications if this exact project was proposed for the empty lots in Deer Ridge abutting the golf course? Or if we ventured slightly into Kiwanis Park? We know what the result would be if a concrete monstrosity such as this was proposed in these neighborhoods... Zoning by-laws must apply equally to all or they are meaningless. A smaller, more reasonably scaled project that really considers the concerns and interests of long-time area residents, avoids disfiguring the existing neighborhoods and considers the effect on flora and fauna is an obvious answer. Best regards, Mike Page 213 of 387 From: Ursula Sent: Monday, October 25, 20217:20 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; pchauvin@mhbcplan.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Concern about proposed development on 528-550 Lancaster st W Hello, I recently received a noticed about a multi building, high rise, development proposed at 528-550 Lancaster street West, Kitchener. As a resident of the area I'm very concerned about how these 1200 additional units are going to impact traffic along Lancaster St. This is only a two lane street and the business area along the Grand River has already made it difficult to turn in/out of my street (General Dr.) during the day. This new development is going to significantly increase traffic in an already busy and narrow route. Additionally, I don't agree with the proposed height of the new buildings - I am concerned that this area is getting too commercial and losing the original charm that attracted me here. I'm concerned that my property value will be negatively impacted as families prefer to stay away from commercial and densely populated neighbourhoods. Lastly, I'm concerned that this development does not include sufficient parking for all 1200 units - less than one spot per unit! As I mentioned previously, Lancaster is narrow and there isn't any street or public parking available. I am worried that these units will resort to using street parking on adjacent roads which is not acceptable. As a long time constituent of Ward 1, 1 urge you to reject this development proposal. It is too large for the area and I don't believe it has been properly thought through. Regards, Urszula Baczkowska Page 214 of 387 From: Sent: To: Subject: Greetings Andrew, Scott & Berry, AnnaJanecek Tuesday, October 19, 20217:03 PM Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; berry.verbanovic@kitchener.ca [EXTERNAL] Condo development at 544 Lancaster St W I am writing to you with regards to the proposed condo development at 544 Lancaster St. W. I live in the surrounding neighbourhood on Lang Cres. I am excited to see some intensification of this area, recognizing that there are limited housing options generally within the region. However, I do have some concerns and cautions that I would like to raise as the city considers this proposal. 1) Traffic - I have read the recommendations that Lancaster St be widened to accommodate the increase in traffic expected with this development. In my experience, turning northbound on Lancaster from Lang Cres has always been a challenge at peak times, especially since the installation of the roundabout at Lancaster and Bridge as it provides very little break in the flow of traffic. I'm very concerned that with this addition to the neighbourhood, peak travel will become exceedingly difficult, not only for vehicular traffic, but for pedestrians and cyclists as well. In addition to widening Lancaster to account for a designated turning lane, I wonder about providing road access to other nearby streets such as Bridgeport Rd E and Riverbend Dr behind the development. 2) Affordable housing - I would love to see the inclusion of affordable housing units as part of this development. As you will know, access to affordable housing is incredibly limited in our region, with many social challenges arising as a result. This location is relatively centrally located within the city of Kitchener. It is well serviced by public transit, and within relatively easy access of various city and community services. I would love to see the city move towards prioritizing access to affordable housing by compelling large-scale developments, such as this, to include a percentage of affordable units. 3) Land Claims - Finally, as a development site situated along the Grand River, and within the Haldimand Tract, I urge the city to reach out and consult with First Nations in honour of both the historical treaties we are bound by and the territorial acknowledgement with which we so blithely begin city events. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anna Janecek Page 215 of 387 From: Becca Loduca Sent: Monday, October 18, 20216:15 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; berry.vrbanovic@kitcener.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Condo Development in Bridgeport Hello, I am providing comments of my concern of the upcoming development in my neighborhood. My first concern is that I did not get a notice that this was happening from the city, instead I heard about it from one of my neighbors. Which makes it seem like this project was not intended to be responded to. Secondly, and most importantly, the Grand River is not our land. As there is currently ongoing discussion with the 6 nations people of the grand river. I rent in the area, and I was very VERY fortunate to find affordable housing in this city. I work full-time and make over minimum, but with prices rising on all other essentials, I find it can be difficult to have quality of life. I can already see that these developments will not be anywhere near the realm of affordable housing, and that is a problem. I am not downtown because I cannot afford it, but if this development gets built, soon I will not be able to afford this area either. People like me deserve to be able to afford housing, and this is not a solution. Thank you for your time Rebecca Loduca Page 216 of 387 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Andrew and Scott Karen Guderian Wednesday, October 20, 202112:20 PM Andrew Pinnell Scott Davey [EXTERNAL] Development on Lancaster I live on Springdale Drive and I find the traffic during rush hours to be incredibly difficult already on Lancaster. It's nearly impossible to exit Lang Street onto Lancaster during these times - especially a left hand turn. Lancaster is a bottle neck as people come into Kitchener over the Bridge Street bridge into the city and visa versa in the afternoon. Adding over 1000 dwelling units in this section of Lancaster before the traffic can fan out into the city would be very disastrous to traffic. I can not see a solution to this since there is a limited number of bridges crossing the Grand river and this a main thorough fare into the city. Kind regards, Karen Guderian Page 217 of 387 From: JAN WILLWERTH Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 10:14 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development request for 528-550 Lancaster Street West Dear Andrew, At the virtual meeting last evening (Thursday, January 20, 2022), 1 inquired about the Environmental Impact Report on the proposal of the campus style development with a 26 story building adjacent to the Grand River. You replied that the GRCA has been engaged and that they approved this proposal. I'm trying to wrap my head around how this could be given that this is along the avian migratory path (including barred owls). Would you please forward the Environment Impact Report assessed by the GRCA to me, so that I can get a clearer view of why this would be approved. Thanks, Jan Willwerth Kitchener, ON Sent from my iPad Page 218 of 387 From: Brittany Kreller Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 202111:50 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Developments in Lancaster St. Hi Andrew, I just saw the "notice of development" for 5 apartment buildings on Lancaster Street in Kitchener, and to be honest it made me sad to hear this news. I don't feel that high rises belong in this area. People love the Bridgeport area because it has a "small town" feel to it, as you're near the city limits. It's going to add a lot of traffic to an area that has suffered through this enough. That small round -a -bout cannot handle more traffic without causing major delays. There are no other high rises in the area, and being on top of the hill it's going to look out of place. It's also going to ruin a beautiful skyline for so many people in Bridgeport. I won't lie, one of my favourite parts about my home is the amazing sunsets we get and how quiet it is. I truly think this development will have a negative impact on a lot of people already living in the area. I hope they consider building smaller, or not at all. Kind regards, Brittany Kreller Page 219 of 387 From: Dan Currie Sent: Monday, October 25, 202111:47 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback - 528-550 Lancaster St West proposal We have lived atESpringdale Dr. for 20 years. We have a number of concerns about the proposed development 528-550 Lancaster Rd. Traffic flow • Last year's construction on Lancaster rerouted traffic onto Lang which does not have sidewalks. Walking along Lang was unsafe, the road was not wide enough to accommodate pedestrians and the increase in cars, and the road edge is still damaged. Detour signage was misleading. Motorists drove at unsafe speeds and used a pedestrian walkway that connects Lang to General in frustration. Further construction will create these hazardous conditions again. • Traffic has increased on Lancaster. This trend will continue when current developments and buildings are fully occupied. It is difficult at many times of the day to make a left hand turn onto Lancaster from Lang. • Traffic has also increased on Bridgeport. It is difficult for pedestrians to cross Bridgeport, sidewalks exist on one side of Bridgeport and are very close to the road. • It is difficult to make a left hand turn from Lang onto Bridgeport at many times of the day. • This neighbourhood plan makes it very difficult to improve the traffic flow. General Drive has one outlet onto Lancaster. Springdale, Horizon Crescent and Lang Dr only have outlets onto Lancaster and Bridgeport. The bridges over the Grand and Laurel Creek are two lane and historical. The roundabout is quite small and the traffic light has limited lanes. Lancaster provides access to the city and the expressway for commuters and commercial vehicles. Currently traffic on Lancaster often turns right and diverts along Lang when the intersection is backed up. Lancaster is a two lane road. • Bridgeport Road is a main artery to access the expressway for a large area. • There is currently significant residential development along Bridge St (towards Breslau). Once these homes are occupied - many will be driving up Lancaster to access the expressway and the city core. • The occupants in the proposed 1 198 units will require cars. Our neighbourhood does not have walkable services such as grocery stores, employment or entertainment. (Except the Lanc!) We are quite a distance from the ION and public transit hubs, and there are no bike paths or lanes. We have heard that the developer will provide fewer parking spots with the anticipation that some occupants will bike! That is just a cost saving measure for the developer and an impractical and totally unrealistic option for occupants. Environmental issues This development is located at the confluence of Laurel Creek and the Grand River. This area is part of a wildlife corridor which extends along the Grand River but also connects along Laurel Creek into Bechtel Park and north Waterloo. The waterfowl, raptors, deer and coyotes which depend on this habitat are just some of the species which will be put at risk by this development. A vital wildlife corridor will be severed and habitats destroyed. Page 220 of 387 26 and 20 storey buildings are a hazard for birds. What is the plan to reduce light pollution and bird deaths? An extensive environmental assessment of the impact of this proposal is required. This area provides a natural recreation area which continues along the Grand River for walking, canoeing and fishing. All of our region benefits from these public, natural spaces. Neighbourhood impact • The size and height of this development is completely out of proportion for this neighbourhood. We live in a small area which is a mix of residential, rental, light industrial and social services. All of the buildings are low in height. The residential area is varied but for the most part modest. The size of this development will literally overshadow a historic community and change the quality of life in this area. • We question if this development fits the existing zoning and long term city plan for this area. Current development We appreciate that there is usable land in the Bridgeport neighbourhood which will be developed for housing. We are aware of three recent developments. • Neighbourhood concerns regarding 450 Bridgeport were largely ignored and the subsequent development on that site shows no regard or respect for the existing properties. The size of the homes at 450 Bridgeport and the proximity to existing homes on Lang Dr represents very poor planning and development decisions. • The redevelopment of the Lutheran church on the corner appears to be an example of good planning decisions. The development is in proportion to the neighbourhood, provides accessible housing as well as allowing the church to remain. • The new building beside Tim Hortons would appear to be in proportion for development in this area. The impact on local traffic remains to be felt when fully occupied. We realize that this property has tremendous potential for development and would be one of the few residential areas on the Grand River. We expect that after extensive traffic studies, an environmental assessment coupled with neighbourhood concerns and input, that any development would proceed with a more sensible, proportional plan than the current one. The current proposal is unacceptable. Please keep us informed on this development. Sincerely, Jane and Dan Currie Page 221 of 387 From: J & H Honch Sent: Monday, October 18, 20215:29 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback - Development at 528-550 Lancaster Street West Good afternoon, My name is Heather Honch and I live at Lang Crescent, Kitchener with my husband and our 3 -month- old baby. I do not want this massive development of 5 condos to be built in my neighbourhood and on the Grand River. First: This is on the Grand River which is a host to a lot of wildlife. Second: It will be an eyesore. This is a beautiful neighbourhood that I am proud to be a part of.. these condos will impact the quality of life in our neighbourhood. Third: Traffic - Lancaster St cannot handle that much traffic. It will create jams and blockages on a tight street. Fourth: Safety of Lang Crescent. I have a child and as we have seen whenever there is construction on Lancaster, traffic is often rerouted down Lang Crescent .. making it a safety issue for this neighbourhood and our children living in it. Also, I am concerned that with 1200+ residents living at the condos, that they will use Lang as a detour road from Lancaster to Bridgeport. Fifth: This development will take years to build and will impact our quality of life on Lang. This giant condominium compound will likely be overpriced and unaffordable for most Kitchener residents. I know that developments can be tempting .. but please, honour the land (the Grand River and its watershed) and the historial Bridgeport Village Community and do not approve this development. This is not the right land for such a large and complex development. Thank you, Heather Honch Page 222 of 387 From: Dharmesh Mistry Sent: Sunday, October 31, 20217:46 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; ; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback for 528-550 Lancaster St W Hello! My name is Dharmesh, and I'm a resident of General drive, one of the few major streets that will be affected by the recent high rises in plan for this area. I am also the owner of the community Facebook group (General Lang Community Group) My biggest concern that I've heard from members of the group is traffic, it is currently very difficult entering and leaving General drive as people speed down the hill from Bridgeport and also cut the corner coming from the Bridge street round about. We sometimes already need to wait 5 mins at the stop sign for a gutsy left turn. With the additional building, we imagine traffic will be even more of an issue. It's (Lancaster street between bridge and Bridgeport) only one lane, and does not seem likely possible to expand. It's already a heavily used road, and the addition of potentially 600 cars (one car between the estimated two dwelling average) and how it was deemed that General dr would be used for "on street parking" I do support the efforts, but we already have a church that was converted into sustainable living apartments, and one huge one built behind the Tim hortons (literally balcony's 6 ft away from the call box of the drive through) Our closet grocery store is freshco or Sobeys which are driving distances away. That, and the highway entrance there is more likely to entice more cars! We only have a tiny park at the entrance of General drive which looks like an after thought (we are currently in works with the city and lovemyhood.ca to get a fence put in.) It just seems like an excessive lot of people to put into a pretty tight area, and does not seem to be sustainable to our area without roadwork and business opportunities to supplement them Thanks for taking the time to review my feedback. Dharmesh Mistry Page 223 of 387 From: Alysha Brilla Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 20215:09 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback for 546 Lancaster Street West Dear Andrew Pinnell, My name is Alysha Brilla. I am a 3X Juno Award nominated artist, music producer, arts as therapy youth worker, community member and Kitchener resident. I have spent the past 17 years providing arts, community support and programming to city residents. Especially in the past 5 years, I have had the pleasure of using my skills as a composer and producer to bring youth and artists from all walks of life into my recording studio and create projects together that provide both therapeutic value, a sense of belonging and pride. My home and recording studio are both located at 546 Lancaster Street West. It is in a home -work space here where much of this valuable activity takes place and where many local artists and musicians have safely gathered outside, especially during Covid. As an established female artist in the region, I often provide a safe space for other women, non -binary artists, LGBTQ2S youth and BIPOC folks. This studio is a sacred space situated close to The Grand River, which, as you are aware is also treaty land (Six miles on either side of the Grand River promised to Six Nations). I received a curious flyer in the mail with a macabre image of my home and studio demolished and in its place, five sterile and industrial, ghastly looking condominiums. I realize this concept image is on a feedback request card and that my email to you now is exactly that. So I would offer you the opportunity to examine the following realities: 1) There are currently multiple (upwards of five and possibly even more) already pre -constructed, empty commercial buildings on the same street (Riverbend Drive, which is kitty corner to the proposed development lot). In the interest of providing Kitchener residents, current and future, with housing; re -zoning and conversion of existing properties is a better investment for several reasons. Firstly, we are in a climate crisis and the financially, environmentally and ethically responsible thing to do is utilize existing land that has been built on, paved or exploited. Between the land itself, the building materials that this would conserve and the energy it would save (electricity, hydro and man -power), it is a bit of a no-brainer as to why one should prioritize the empty buildings for residential use. The pandemic has cleared many office buildings out. This would not be the first time City of Kitchener collaborated on such projects. Years ago when the downtown Tannery and tech district was developed, it was thanks to this conversion value. 2) 546 Lancaster Street West is absolutely a historic landmark. Whether it has been officially assigned so by the department of heritage or not, these buildings were built in 1837 and contain rich history in the former Bridgeport town now integrated into Kitchener. Beyond the historic value of the buildings themselves, we have the old growth trees that exist on this property and the ecosystem that lives within them. There are few places in the Waterloo Region where you can find this many Spruce, Cedar and Pine trees of 200+ years in age. I see birds, squirrels, beavers, coyotes and foxes in my yard because they all rely on the wetlands around the Grand River for their sustenance. This is a fragile environmental area and buildings would not only disrupt, but destroy a Page 224 of 387 significant chunk of KW wildlife along the Grand River since this is where Laurel Creek and The Grand River connect. It is a meeting place for the waters and the wildlife. It is insulting to me, the animals and anyone who has a modicum of concern for the welfare of the earth to even suggest changing a square inch of green space here when there are designated and perfectly ready and empty concrete blocks on the aforementioned Riverbend Drive. 3) 1 live here. I am not an anonymous KW resident. I am well known and well loved by my community do not live in isolation. This space has been a harbour for many artists (especially as aforementioned, those on the margins in terms of gender/sexuality/race etc) and beyond my international status or awards, I am valued for being here in this city. This is my home and this is my studio. My feedback to you, the City of Kitchener and Pierre Chauvin of MHBC Planning is that this project will not go ahead without an incredible amount of resistance and great public backlash. I look forward to your response, Alysha Brilla 3x Juno Award Nominated Songwriter & Music Producer •Classes • Workshops •Creative Wellness weaving together worlds "Wherever you are is the entry point" - Kabir `��IIIII��� .e - Page 225 of 387 From: Roger Bowman Sent: Sunday, October 31, 20219:56 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback on the Development proposal for 528-550 Lancaster West Hello Andrew, While I don't believe we have ever met, as a resident on Lang Crescent I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the development proposal for 528-550 Lancaster West. My perspective overall is that a 5 building complex as a "landmark gateway" to the Bridgeport community is a somewhat misplaced idea that does not reflect the character or aspirations of the existing Bridgeport community. I also acknowledge that the city has plans and targets for the future and this is an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal package as presented. With that in mind I trust you will find my commentary of interest. Executive Summary: 1) The documentation package is indeed an attempt at a thorough analysis of the impact of the development. It would seem valuable to see an analysis where more of the existing bylaws and limitations are adhered to. 2) There are aspects of the analysis that seem to be based on questionable assumptions and analysis. 3) In several instances there seems to be a missing perspective of community reality. 4) A few general points of feedback and questions that would be great to hear answers to While have I have given a cursory read to all documents and in-depth read to a subset, the concerns found in areas of deeper reading create cause for concern for a large scale project such as this. As a community we are anticipating that the planning department is investing sufficient resource to ensure a successful result for the community whether the project is fully implemented as proposed or on a responsibly smaller scale. I trust this feedback will be considered and I look forward to your response. Appreciatively, Roger Bowman (Lang Crescent resident) The Overall Package It is very much appreciated that the city has made the documentation set available for the public to read and provide feedback on. It is clear that the package is written to satisfy several perspectives but the underlying view is that of a developer desiring to produce a "maximized" solution within the space allotted. This maximized approach is what leads to the need to seek exceptions to bylaws and limitations established by the city to achieve the developers objectives (presumably financial). The main question to consider is whether the developer has been asked to present one or more potential solutions that might align with more of the existing city boundaries and provincial recommendations. I would expect these boundaries were established for intelligent reasons. What if the density ratios were Page 226 of 387 maintained and the distance allowances adhered to? What if there were full allowances for right turn, left turn, bike lanes, and sidewalks? What if the responsibility of providing sufficient parking were to remain with the developer rather than burdening the surrounding community streets? Have "aligned" proposals been requested/provided or just a "maximized" package? Questionable Analysis From a 'living on Lang" perspective it was intriguing to read the analysis for parking and traffic flow As the region encourages less auto -dependence it is clearly necessary to challenge the 1.15 parking spaces per unit. It was, however, alarming to see a recommended figure of 0.72 in the proposal. In reading the analysis details there were two points of concerning logic and/or assumptions. 1) In section 5.4.7 it states that based on the TDM measures that are proposed to be implemented in the report a parking space ratio of 0.9 is acceptable. It then goes on to say IF all TDM measures are taken then 0.78 ratio would be acceptable. The remaining analysis carries on with using the IF data not the ratio supported by the actual proposal. 2) The next level of analysis relies on what is referred to as "proxy site data". This seems to be an opportunistic/selective use of data that favours the developer. Both referenced scenarios are for less than 100 units (which is then extrapolated to a 1200 unit multi -building building complex) and one is for a townhouse complex rather than an apartment building. Additionally, historically 270 Spadina could be considered a low income apartment ie. a place with people that cannot afford cars. The immediate question becomes whether that is the expected clientele in a complex with 26th floor vista views of the Grand River. The over -arching point is that these selective low -ratio data points are then stated as relevant "facts" for further calculations. It would seem prudent to ask for an objective choice of relevant proxy site data to be used in the analysis - alternatively consider excluding its use. It seems a stretch to justify moving below the 0.9 parking ratio. (the notion of parking on Lang or General Drive will be addressed under "Reality Checks") The traffic flow analysis also raised a few points of concern and questions as well. The one significant remedial action is to introduce a shared left turn lane from Shirk place through Bridgeport. While the benefit for turning left into the proposed complex is clear, the benefit to the residents on Lang Cres and General Dr is not. Stated another way, this is an example of evaluating from the perspective of the new complex more so than the impact on the local community. There also appears to be selective adherence to recommendations. One specific example would be that of having a right turn lane. The MTO recommendation is to consider a right turn lane for vph of 60 or more. The estimated right turn volume for the complex is estimated to be 117 vph. The document goes on to say that based on the data no right turn lane is required. If being almost double the rate does not necessitate following an MTO recommendation it becomes curious what over -subscription would? It should also be noted that the inflow/outflow data for the complex is derived from the parking space ratio number. If that parking space number is indeed faulty then it impacts the downstream traffic analysis. (additional traffic related comments under "Reality Checks") Some Reality Checks Page 227 of 387 The plan states that "Considerable attention has been given to the overall impact of the community..." This is a rather broad (even baseless?) claim. Based on several neighbourhood discussions it appears that project feedback flyers were distributed to residents within a limited range of the project site. Given the change in traffic flow there will be impact for all residents on Lang Cres and General Drive and beyond. So in reality, while the attention may be claimed as "considerable" it could also be considered limited and lacking when it comes to providing attention to the community. In the proposal it is explicitly stated that the lack of parking in the complex can be balanced out by street parking on General Drive and Lang Cres. A walk on Lang this evening revealed space for parking approximately 4-6 additional vehicles within the stated 200m of Lancaster. General drive may have a slightly more space ... though it is a Sunday evening so the patrons of local establishments (eg. Lancaster Smokehouse) are not already using General Drive for overflow parking. Additionally, there are no sidewalks on Lang Cres after the first 100m. So in reality the overflow parking designed into the project plan requires people to cross a street with an expected 1000 or so vph and to increase pedestrian flow on a street with limited sidewalks. In the Noise Assessment it is identified that the current noise levels in the area already exceed Ontario recommendations. Two reality checks to mention here - 1) the study was performed in March 2021. If my memory is correct I think the Waterloo Region was in some form of lockdown (ie. reduced traffic) due to a little thing called a pandemic. 2) While the focus of the assessment outlines mitigations for the residents of the complex there is nothing noted for the community around the complex which will in fact be increasing the traffic noise due to the complex. The documentation states that "From a transportation perspective, the proposed development will support the ION light rail transit system.". Reality check ... this development application is currently the only large scale proposal that is NOT within a viable distance of the ION corridor. Consider the transit claims from someone that has used the #6 route to Northfield/University area over several years as part of a diversified community strategy. A few reality checks here... • The existing 30 minute schedule of the #6 (and #5) is insufficient and makes for challenging connections in returning back to the community. I trust GRT will come to this conclusion as well and make the necessary adjustments. • While increasing bus frequency has benefits, anyone who drives the single lane of Lancaster and Bridge will attest to the impact each bus has on the traffic flow on the single lane of Lancaster West and Bridge streets. Increased bus frequency at the complex can have traffic implications back through to the Bridgeport/Lancaster intersection. • As a former bus/bike commuter I would not envy the position of residents of the proposed complex who have aspirations for a mixed bike/bus commuting strategy (each bus can only carry 2 bikes). How many additional cyclists are expected in the proposed plan? • While the proposal talks of bus shelters on the complex side of Lancaster, there is no mention of similar shelters on the opposite side of the road (hopefully an easy fix). However, anyone desiring to catch the #5 to Uptown or the #6 to Downtown has the challenge of crossing the traffic in front of the complex or detouring via the traffic lights at Lancaster and Bridgeport. When piecing together the components of the various documents it appears that the length of road between Bridgeport and Shirk will have a) a single lane each direction b) a shared left turn lane c) a full bike lane in each direction, and d) regular sidewalks on both sides. The reality of watching the construction and positioning of the current 10 story building suggests that these expectations may be a challenge to meet. To close out "reality checks" consider a glorious statement from the Project Justification - "The proposed development offers a landmark opportunity to create a gateway to the broader Lancaster and Bridgeport community where existing land uses will not be negatively impacted by the higher densities and taller format of the proposed development." This is a beautiful, inspiring, visionary statement but in reality is Page 228 of 387 making grand, definitive claims that are not necessarily supported by all aspects of the documentation package or by many residents of the Bridgeport community. Other feedback/Questions One remedial action for traffic flow is the introduction of a shared left turn lane. Can it be confirmed whether the additional road allowance comes from the property being developed (including bike lanes and sidewalks). It appears that the burden of adequate parking (or in reality the burden of insufficient parking in the design) is placed on the existing neighbourhood streets rather than on the new development. Would it not make sense to have the new development actually plan for sufficient parking needs of the complex? The document states that "The proposed development is intended to be market -rate rental units, which will contribute to the supply and mix of housing in the community." Is there a clear definition from the developer on what position in the "mix of housing" they intend to address as well as what potential residents can expect as "market -rate" for the rentals. Given the developer would only proceed if there is a viable financial plan it would seem of value to the city to know the target in both of these areas. Has a bus transit analysis been performed? There is ability to approximate the vehicle activity based on available data and assumptions. It would follow that a similar approach could be taken for Bus transit analysis. This should also consider seasonal analysis as many of those without cars would be bussing not biking in the winter months. The proposal has two access points on Lancaster. Has access through to Riverbend drive been analyzed? This would divert the left turn challenges onto Lancaster to existing traffic light signals at Bridgeport/Lancaster. Yes they would need to acquire an additional strip of land for this alternate exit point. Tree Preservation plan. There are 211 trees. Cut them all down to make way for the project. I trust this was not a surprise to the City. In the Heritage assessment it talks of re -locating the buildings from 1873. The wording around the commitment to relocate also appears to be rather flexible. Is it possible for the general public to join the Kitchener office pool on whether or not the buildings will ultimately be demolished? (just adding some humour here. I hope my relocation expectations are incorrect.) In the overall project justification it states "The proposed development satisfies some of these criteria with the provision of below grade parking and the preservation of the cultural heritage features on the lands." The analysis statement explicitly excludes "provision of affordable housing" and "public amenity areas" - which is likely an accurate exclusion. This statement, however, is contradicted in the summary which declares "Overall community benefits including heritage conservation, affordable housing, and provision of amenity space within the site can be achieved". Grand summary statements that contradict the underlying findings are concerning given the number of readers/decision makers that may indeed only read the summary statements. Page 229 of 387 From: Donald J McKellar Sent: Saturday, October 23, 20214:09 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Comments regarding 528-550 Lancaster Street West (Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment) Also regarding parking..you stated extra parking on General Dr. and Lang Cres..Lang Cres has no sidewalks or curbs..people already park on grass..people with kids strollers and Seniors with walkers are alredy in peril..this should have been addressed years ago..oh well its only Bridgeport I guess..our councillor has been useless on this.. Get Outlook for Android From: Donald J McKellar Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 20215:43:33 PM To: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.PinnelI@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Comments regarding 528-550 Lancaster Street West (Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment) Get Outlook for Android From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 20215:23:05 PM To: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.PinnelI@kitchener.ca> Subject: Comments regarding 528-550 Lancaster Street West (Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By- law Amendment) Hello, Thank you for your comments regarding the subject development applications. So far, I have received a significant amount of feedback from the community regarding these applications. Your comments may be considered and summarized, as part of the planning process, in the following ways: • In the preparation of a `What We Heard' summary report; • As part of my Planning analysis; and • Ina recommendation report to Council. Here are the next steps in the planning process: Current statur)7 �:id• �Hoticeofdeuelapnent lieiffhkUh®ad Staffcansolidatingall feedback inorderto Caiicil"sianrainiiiivted smd_ShareyDurthoughts is�enfuriratiae �finalize arecanrnendation tabecansidered backimrmWentswhapartiripaig bywntactingafitp ssiai byPlaaaingCanmMe@and CilyCDU nri1 4 iniilarnitiiisessions planner Page 230 of 387 I will reach out to you with the details of the upcoming Neighbourhood Meeting, when it is scheduled. I can confirm that I have added you to the circulation list and you will receive further updates regarding these applications. However, I request that you please provide me with your mailing address as well. Learn more about the project, share your thoughts and understand your appeal rights, visit www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications. Sincerely, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca Yogi M !7 Page 231 of 387 From: Sent: Friday, October 29, 20218:47 AM To: Cc: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] High-rise development at 544 Lancaster St. W. My name is Sam Besse and me and my family live at E Lang Crescent. My wife and I bought our house over 25 years ago. It's a small wartime home with a very large backyard. My neighbours on my side of the street also have yards 400 feet or more deep. I had 4 deer in my backyard back in March. It like living in the country in the city. Bridgeport has always been a quiet corner community of Kitchener with the Grand River running through the neighbourhood. My family lives 9 houses away from the proposed development at 528-550 Lancaster St. W. My initial reaction to the proposal received via mailed flyer was shock, given what this location represents in terms of conservation along the Grand River, the heritage of the community and the craziness of fit to location for such a large development in a quiet part of town. In the last 2 years we have already seen the demolition of St. Paul's Lutheran Church (corner of Bridgeport Rd and Lancaster St. W.) replace by a 5 -story residential building with another 5 -story similar building planned for construction in the next year or two. Of most recent, the construction of the 6 - story residential building on Lancaster besides Tim Horton's, at the end of Lang Crescent. My understanding of the City's Growth Management Plan with the operation of the ION electric train is to build up, not out, which I agree with. I walk past the cranes along Duke St. every morning on my way to work and see all of the residential high-rise development going up over the past few years and the new foundations going in right beside or proximate to the train tracks. I support tax investment in public transportation to not only assist those without access to a vehicle, but to alleviate congestion on the roads as well. In short, this development belongs along the ION line somewhere, there are many options. The end of my street is not one of them. I bought my house for the quiet neighbourhood and the big park like setting in my back yard. There are no sidewalks on Lang Crescent, despite my brief inquiry on the matter 25 years ago. We have seen an increase in traffic along Lang Crescent since then as a way for vehicles to by-pass the lights going south at Lancaster and Bridgeport Adding to the increased traffic, this development will continue to further increase traffic on Lang Crescent for those vehicles coming out of the proposed property which aligns with the end of Lang Crescent. They also now have the option to drive straight down Lang Crescent coming out of their residence in order to by-pass the lights at Lancaster and Bridgeport on their way to Hwy. 85 or uptown Waterloo. Still no sidewalks for old people, dogs and children. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns for this development at this location. The fit for location is awful for many reasons. The recent developments have already and will continue to see increased in residential and vehicle traffic. This quiet corner of Bridgeport has done its part with some low-rise residential buildings. The City of Kitchener should recognize its responsibility to home owners in this community, the long history of Bridgeport and the extensive negative effects this development Page 232 of 387 will have on the community and its citizens. Say NO to this development. Put it in the right place. Lancaster Street West is definitely not that place. Thank you for your consideration and understanding. This development would be a better fit along the ION rail line as there are many site -appropriate opportunities available. The Grand River deserves protection from development, the Bridgeport community deserves protection from such massive development in our quiet corner of the city. Bridge St and Lancaster St. are already over -congested with traffic all day until early evening after rush hour. This community deserves the quiet neighbourhood they invested in. Page 233 of 387 From: Bernie Beleskey Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:42 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Kitchener Bridgeport -Lancaster follow Up Zoom Meeting Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell(a)_kitchener.ca Dear Andrew Very well done with the Zoom presentation, thank you. Our Comments: 1. Re: Owner's Parking space reduction request - We oppose 100% - NB: If the project follows the existing Height limits under the Municipal By Law, they will have at least 1 per unit minimum, OK! 2. Traffic follow: Their needs to have a Two-way exit onto Shirley Ave. NB: I believe this would be a requirement anyways by the Fire Department As well. require an one way into the B&L Development property at Lang Dr East. an existing City lane way. NB: That City lane could be used in exchange to the Lancaster East side set back needed for the road widening 3. Re: Lancaster Street: "A Main designated route" needs to be widened from General to Bridgeport Rd. As you know already! Thus -The Owner of Bridgeport Lancaster INC Development needs to provide: • A side walk and new tree scape set back in front of their property from Tim's to The Smoke House. • With at least 2 meters of the Lancaster roadway given to the City for road widening • The Tree line needs to be to the east of the side walk to permit future tree growth. • This will necessitate the moving Unit B eastward a minimum of 6 meters Page 234 of 387 Units C & D will likely need to be re -aliened from their current East West to a NW, to allow for ample parking. In setting Unit B back will allow an area for the Transit vehicles to pull in - off Lancaster - thus not impeding traffic 4. The Fire Department must provide their Safety Report long before approval is given. 5. Definitely; require the accommodation for "Geared to Income" Especially for Seniors This will down the road drastically reduce our Homeless situation by providing suitable accommodation. Long before they have to move because they can not pay the high rent. Minimum of 10% - 2 bedroom units A copy of the geological study need to be read to determine why the "Under Ground Parking " spaces are restricted. Our understanding they would hit the water -table. Do not know for sure. That would be for you to investigate Also: It would be highly recommend that a consultation with the Indigenous People begin immediately; just like meeting with the Fire Department.ASAP as you indicate would be done Yours truly Bernie & Jane Beleskey Page 235 of 387 From: Jonathan Honch Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 2:16 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lancaster Skyscraper Meeting - Even more feedback Hi Andrew, I have to thank you/everyone involved for putting yesterdays' meeting together. I found it very informative, paced well, and organized well. I appreciate your position - being in the middle of the city, residents, and developers is not an easy role to fill. Out of everyone presenting I respected you and your attitude most. I have 1. some typical complain-ey opinions for you (no surprise!), and 2. Some ideas of solutions. I know many of them don't apply to you, but I can't contact the development management company or Vive. 1. These Developers don't have the best interests of either residents or tenants. - Buildings don't paint an inviting picture for current/new Kitchener citizens. Their cast concrete exterior either natural or painted white says "Cheaping out as much as possible", having a 26 storey building right beside houses and 3 -storey apartments never looks good (Drive through 4 - storey Italy = beautiful, Drive through University Waterloo with bungalows beside skyscrapers = repelling) - More rental properties is NOT what Kitchener needs - it needs affordable ownership. This is a convoluted issue with pros and cons on both ends: Ownership is expensive up -front and forces commitment, and Renting makes people poor and landlords rich. I wish there was a flexible middle ground as described in this Atlantic article, but.... that's my opinion. - Lack of Parking and road access - not having middle left turn accomodation for tenants will be annoying. Parking lot will be backed up with people trying to get out AND in, visitor parking will likely be >95% full at all times due to the lack of parking. This will be a bitter experience for everyone - tenants AND neighbors AND commuters Alternative Ideas to sustainably house people in a way that really invites people in and makes people happy in the neighborhood: - Quality Low-rise apartments for ownership: The new low-income apartment building on the corner of Lancaster and Bridgeport is a great example of this: the exterior aesthetic and height really matches it's surroundings, has a positive impact on the neighborhood just from its appearance. My understanding is that it has low-income programs in it. It can efficiently yet comfortably house residents and can be much more sustainable from traffic, environmental, and social perspectives. It would also have a much warmer reception from the surrounding neighborhood, rather than something repelling. Other Notes & questions: - We would not have heard of the meeting on Jan 20th without Alyssa's door -knocking. We don't recall ever recieving a postcard from the City. That being said, thanks for going above and beyond the minimum required notice. - We completely support all other complaints discussed by other attendees during the meeting. - Where are the meeting slides posted? I tried looking on the Kithener Building Planning map page and found the Lancaster application proposal, but couldn't find the slides. Thanks again for hosting. Best of luck with the upcoming decision-making process. Page 236 of 387 From: Franklin Kains Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 7:14 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Franklin Kains Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lancaster Street pending development Hello Andrew As a follow up to our conversation on Wednesday February 2 2022. With all the development in Bridgeport that has taken place over the last 50 years that we have been residents here, there has been only one consistent element. Everything has been low rise, whether it has been industrial, commercial, retail, business oriented, office space or residential. The highest building is 10 stories which is presently under construction. What makes anybody think that 20 and 26 storey buildings are compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood? One only needs to go across the bridge and stand in the parking lot near the soccer / football field on Bridge street. Now, look back at the area where this development is going and imagine a building twice as tall as the 10 storey that is now visible. The city and this developer can do better. I understand that The city of Kitchener has plans to redesign Lancaster street and to make it a more energetic, bustling neighbourhood. I think that is a good vision to have but even with new development I somehow don't think 20 and 26 storey buildings will be built in front of existing homes that are located off of Lancaster Street. This development has virtually no green space around it. The small play area at the river side of the development will sit in shadow more times in the day than in some sun. This is very uninviting for young children and parents or grandparents. speaking of which, why is there not 2 and 3 bedroom apartments being offered for families who would like to live in this area? Young families who have a good income, but not good enough for a stand alone house, would like a community like this if it was built for families. Rather than have the centre of the complex covered in cars, why not have green space, where not just young children can play but older ones can shoot some hoops and kick a soccer ball around and grandparents can sit and visit. there is something to be said about having a lot of community eyes on our children. This of course would mean a redesign of the layout/ location of the buildings in order to have an active community space. The closest green space as it sits right now with this proposal is across the bridge at the community centre or the Bridgeport school play ground or Bechtel park playground, which isn't geared for older children. This is a family oriented community. Why not make this project into a family friendly living space. There is a wonderful opportunity here for the city and for the developer to start to make changes along Lancaster Street conducive to the existing neighbourhood. Bike lanes are an interesting undertaking on Lancaster Street. With the heavy traffic that we see on Lancaster now, riding a bike is pretty concerning, From the maps showing us the frontage of this development there doesn't appear to be a lot of bicycle and pedestrian space. If bicycles are to be encouraged, a path similar to that on Woolwich Street Waterloo side, should be considered. It is simply too dangerous with the potential increase in traffic to not ensure a wide enough space. Page 237 of 387 Traffic now, is a lot and to add all that is being suggested will be overwhelming to the community. Lancaster is not exceptionally wide and this project will only add frustration to the neighbourhood if it is allowed to go ahead as proposed. Who ever wrote the report about parking and said that short term parking IS available on the side streets was pretty arrogant. What makes that statement o k with the immediate neighbours? The No Parking signs are there for a reason. There is a lot of concern regarding the delivery of materials to the building site. Side streets, especially Lang Crescent cannot be holding areas for large idling trucks. Think Ottawa!! This will have to be orchestrated very well. This is not a great site for delivery and unloading of materials by large trucks. This will be a challenge. The removal of all the trees is distressing. It doesn't matter how many new, young, healthy trees the developer provides, they will never replace the old established trees that are presently there. Just when I thought the city was trying to protect our green canopy. hmmm I think these were most of my thoughts. Thank you for your time. Please listen to the community. Luella Kains Page 238 of 387 From: Dharmesh Mistry Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 7:54 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lancaster Street Towers Hello Andrew Thank you for hosting the session for 528-550 Lancaster Development, I really appreciated the opportunity to hear, and discuss with my fellow neighbours regarding the new site developments. I also wanted to express apologies on behalf of some of the citizens who had some choice words for the group, especially those directed towards your gender, and the colour of your skin, and the other presenters of the evening, that's pretty uncool. With all that said. I do want to speak to some of the concerns raised towards the construction so far. Yes, it is true, that when lancaster was closed, general drive was inappropriately marked as a through way (not explicitly marked, but the sign on Lancaster saying no through way made it seem that way) and it was very dangerous the speeds at which some cars were traveling at, alot of which I'm assuming was due to the fact that the construction was not well informed, and many people were frustrated and perhaps driving more aggressively due to time. Traffic was pretty bad at times, especially with the round -about closures throughout 2021. There were times where it took 20 minutes just to get out of that 1KM radius. This was also true with Lang Cres, which when acting as a through way became quite scary to be walking, or even just living on as some of the residents mentioned. The trucks being constantly parked on Lang Cres are true. Everyday that the lady said might be an exaggeration, but most days, and generally once or twice during the day. Those remarks about the road being dug out and not fixed intentionally so that Trucks could use Lang there were very true, and I do recall hearing some choice words between a resident (who I assume was one of those homes) and one of the site members on a couple of occasions. Regarding the actual proposition The Road and Surrounding areas I felt that some of the information answered during the Q/A segments were invalid. As an example, one resident asked if the surveys took into account the new construction of the development on Bridgeport across Leander, and the new apartment complex that was built on the Church's site (as I'm informed, the Church is now the basement of the building, and the units on top are rentals). The answer to that was yes, however another resident mentioned that the traffic survey was taken June 2020, both those areas were not yet developed. That seems like a big concern that wasn't really addressed in a way that I feel properly represents the situation. The Term "residual" was mentioned for traffic bandwidth, which I feel does actually suggest what current traffic room we have left in this "corridor". As I'm sure you already know. Lancaster to Bridge represents a very important, very packed, very crucial road where traffic is always a big issue. The alternative routes would be the highway to University, Bluevale to Lincoln to University, and ... gulp.. Victoria to EbyCrest to Bridge, which I think everyone can agree is quite the detour. This particular set of roads is many peoples way to get to Breslau and Guelph should they be off of Bridge without trekking down to Victoria or Wellington. It's also Page 239 of 387 only one lane, and anyone making lefts backs traffic up dramatically (Yes, addressing a center turning lane up to Shirk helps, but does not solve the approach to the roundabout which is where things get dicey.) People also cut that corner in front of Shirk beside the Lancaster smokehouse as they make their way up to Bridgeport. It is really bad, and really tight. • I'm a resident at the furthest end of General Drive, right next to the offshoot of General place, and even now, on my driveway, I am able to see the 10 storey building through the homes, and we are already aware this was 2 floors above regulations on a separate permit, but to suggest another building 2.5 times it's height is quite substantial (and two more "just" twice its height). Shadows aside, which the applicant suggests will not be an issue, that's really a stand out monument in otherwise a generally lower rise area. Even those larger real estate buildings don't approach anywhere near in size The Building's themselves The fact that the applicant said that they are trying to incentivize residents to not have cars in these apartment buildings also threw out some incorrect numbers. To walk to Freshco, it is over a 20 minute walk, the numbers that were quoted in the presentation I calculated and concluded a walking speed of 10km/h, that's like a decently fit person's 5K running speed. Sobeys and the Walmart at Bridgeport Plaza, that's 40 minutes, and crossing into another city, and across a highway turn ramp, not very ideal. Many of the residents in this apartment building will need cars, and I don't blame them for wanting cars, because there is not a lot available to walk to, The few shops like Tim Hortons, Subway, and the two plaza with very little to offer, Gulfs, and the Smokehouse are great, but that's really it, everything else is quite a hike. I feel like these apartment buildings are being targeted towards more for people with cars because of its Proximity to the highway ramps, and that the builder is looking to maximize profits (naturally) at the expense of the neighbourhood by limiting commercial space, limiting parking availability, and try to cram in as many apartments as possible. Furthermore, unbundling the apartments from the parking spaces to further push as many possible cars in there as possible. Even when asked, 1 and 2 bedroom only, which only further incentivizes individuals as opposed to families. 83M, it isn't a bit higher than the limit, it's completely a disregard. Just to put things into perspective, the tallest building in Waterloo is the Sage 2 Condos near the university, and that's 84M tall (and also not on a hill that trends upward)... and that is in the middle between WLU and UW. The list of the buildings in KW in this 20+ floor skyscrapers category are in very very key locations. The Barrel Yards are in the heart of Uptown Waterloo, next to pubs, restaurants, streets, businesses, ION, transit hubs etc.. The ones on Victoria, same things, including places like Google, and the transit hubs, the downtown kitchener shops and the GO stations. There is nothing like that here, it's just a really good commuting spot. These rules that Kitchener has put forth, are averages for the zones, correct? Meaning that the values you have determined (8 stories, 0.9 Parking per unit, 10 storeys, etc..) are evaluated based on an average over many different locations. I think it's unfair to take a rule determined by conducting an average, and then asking for an exception on it. It's a kin to double rounding, where you're already gaining a figure higher, and then taking even higher from there. There are several more concerns, such as the distance between the road and the buildings, the removal of two heritage homes (which it was said it was going to be moved, but didn't bring a whole lot of confidence that would be a priority) and the severe lack of parking for the units. But I don't want to Page 240 of 387 continue listing what you've already heard or will here I'm happy to partake in discussions, and I do want the building to build something with the land, but within reasons, there are rules, regulations and sizing for a reason. Redrawing zonings from the 80s, okay, changing a limit from 8 storeys to 10.. maybe.. but to 26? crazy! Cheers! Dharmesh Mistry Page 241 of 387 From: RICK HOMANCHUK Sent: Monday, November 1, 20218:30 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; berry.vrbanovic@kitchner.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] massive development at 544 lancaster st This letter is regarding the news about the application for development at 544 lancaster, I am 100 % against such a large development on that property , i already have two high rise's in close eyesight of my house now, i hate it, the developer right now has total disregard for the surrounding neighbourhood now , 5 more buildings really????? i can,t even get out of my own drive way or try to get on to lancaster from Zang cr with transport truck's using this street for a staging zone and nobody want's to do anything about V? then do you even think about traffic issue's on lancaster and Zang with 5 more building's with 1200 unit"s, i guess not , and that's planning??????, maybe you should sit back and think about how you are ruining people's live's in bridgeport with project's like this, and i could go on for ever why i am dead against this Richard Homanchuk Page 242 of 387 From: Betty Green Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 10:41 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Meeting re: 528-500 Lancaster Street Hello Andrew Pinnell, I attended the meeting regarding the proposed development at 528-550 Lancaster Street last Thursday evening. I would like to ensure that my name is on that mailing list for Minutes. I would also like to submit some additional concerns related to the proposed development: 1. 1 am very concerned about the building of highrise buildings along this bird migratory route. The windows and lights of highrises will likely have a deadly impact on birds of this area and those migrating along the river's path. We know from many cities, like Toronto, that huge numbers of birds become disoriented by the lights of highrise buildings (Fatal Light Awareness Program). Birds strike windows and/or become exhausted and die. It is also concerning that there would be a negative impact on wildlife habitat. I live on General Drive, not bordering on Laurel Creek, and I see animals such as deer and foxes that come to look for vegetation on our street. We do not need fewer areas for these animals to survive and thrive in our lovely city. Does the city ever consult Ontario Natural Resources? 2. 1 have great concerns about traffic congestion along Lancaster Street. There will be additional buses and as well as vehicles in commute. And because these highrise buildings are rentals, we can anticipate increased numbers of cars and trucks at the end of every month, as people move in and out. There will be greater volumes of traffic as potential renters drive to the area to view accommodations. In spite of a previous study that indicated no traffic issues, I believe there is unanimous concern amongst homeowners in this area about traffic congestion at rush hour during non pandemic times. 3. It has already been pointed out that there are concerns about increased number of cars and trucks on General Drive. With limited parking spaces for tenants and visitors of these buildings, there would be overflow to our residential streets. Our quiet neighbourhood street would become noisier and less safe for children. It would negatively impact our peaceful neighbourhood. This is a huge concern. Thank you for your anticipated attention to these matters. Sincerely, Betty Green Page 243 of 387 From: Donald J McKellar Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 20212:27 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] New development For forty years Bridgeport has been ignored by Kichener... now it seems gungho... traffic is already horrendous on Lancaster now..l have lived on Lang Cres for over 60 years ... it has alway been bad getting onto Lancaster ...how will you solve all traffic ?.. Get Outlook for Android Page 244 of 387 From: Grant roe Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20217:41 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic; Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to proposed development at 528-550 Lancaster street west. the proposed development is way too big for the area. Lancaster street, and connecting roads, would need to be expanded to 4 lanes to accommodate the extra traffic. Is the developer willing to bear the full cost of that? Increased traffic would flow onto nearby side streets making sidewalks necessary. Is the developer willing to pay for that? The sewage infrastructure would need to be upgraded to handle the extra flow. Is the developer going to pay for that? Local residents should not be expected to subsidise corporate profits. I do not want such a project in my neighborhood. Such a development will negatively impact my quality of life with increased air, noise and light pollution, and probably crime as well given my experience with the new development at 544 Bridgeport Rd. If any development takes place, it should be within the existing rules with no exceptions, or changes to accommodate the applicant. I also want city planners to consider closing off access to Lang Crescent at its juncture with Lancaster street to reduce the already too many speedy motorists using Lang to avoid the light at Lancaster and Bridgeport Rd intersection. Increasing the population density, and thereby car traffic, in the area will only increase the problem. thanks grant roedding Page 245 of 387 From: DEBORAH GEIGER Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:35 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Noise Complaint at Lancaster St Project Good morning Mr. Pinnell & VIVE Development I am writing this letter as official complaint of noise coming from 528-550 Lancaster St. I have tried to reach you ( Mr Pinell) and left voice mail at your office. I do believe the city by-law officer (Zorian) has also left a message that has not been returned by you. I am writing to you as you are the senior planner for this site and you told me in the Virtual Zoom meeting that any problem with this site should be referred to the bylaw office. Which it has, and has not been resolved as of yet. I am now at my breaking point; I get no sleep because of the incessant white noise all night long coming off the heaters that were installed weeks ago on each & every floor outside of the building. How can anyone trust anything said in regards to this entire proposal when Vive Development cannot even figure out how to keep the place heated without inundating the neighborhood with white noise? Whomever made the decision to point them out towards the street, right at our homes was clearly not thinking and obviously had no concern whatsoever for the community here at all. I realize that the heating units must be outside of the building for safety purposes. They could have put them on the balconies at the rear of the building and there would have had no problem, but I am sure they were trying to save money at the cost of whomever had to hear it all night long. Namely myself and neighbors closest to the building. I am sure they were put there for cost savings on the piping. The Bylaw office did a decibel reading test and found the noise to be greater than what is acceptable. According to the bylaw office, who are keeping me up to date on the problem, the site has received their first fine on Friday Feb 11/22. 1 realize that the fine they give to Corporations of this size is a drop in the bucket to them. So........ what is to stop them from just paying the fine each day and leaving the situation as it is??? Absolutely nothing! So, I propose to call the bylaw every night until this has been rectified. I really have better things to do besides calling bylaw every night and I am quite put out that I have to use these measures just to get the problem resolved. My time & energy is being taken away from caring for my son who has recently had a stroke. I am at an extremely crucial point in my life and fed up with the entire city regarding this project as you can clearly see from my attitude. If this noise continues, I will have no other choice but to escalate this to members of the city council, the mayor as well as the KW record. I am sure that Vive Development does not need any bad press in regards to the proposal for this development and I implore you to please help me to get some semblance of peace in my life as well as a much-needed good night's sleep. Deborah Geiger Page 246 of 387 From: heather kersell Sent: Thursday, October 14, 20214:17 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning application for 528-550 Lancaster St. W Hi Andrew, I am a resident on General Drive, which is in close proximity to the development planned on Lancaster St West near Bridgeport Road. Many of my neighbors and I are concerned about the impact of this proposed application in respect to traffic on Lancaster and parking capacity requirements. Please notify me directly when a neighborhood information session will be planned. I am reviewing the application on the City of Kitchener website in detail, and look forward to presenting you with questions and concerns. Thank you! Heather Kersell Page 247 of 387 From: Walter M Sent: Friday, October 29, 20219:30 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning application for development on Lancaster Street Kitchener Mssrs. I have read through these applications for development in my neighborhood of Bridgeport and I have come to the absolute conclusion that this project is not only completely destroying our area but also the delicate environmental area very close to the Grand river. Therefore I am completely 100% against this hairraising and even to be considered a project. The Lancaster street right now is already a high traffic street, and by adding this project would turn Lancaster street into a virtual drive way. I have noticed that many cars take this route already from the highway to turn via bridgestreet to avoid Victoria street traffic. And since the city has not had the foresight to build a bridge or tunnel over the train tracks at Lancaster to Victoria street, therefore on many occasions when the trains shuttles their cargo cars to the tracks towards the rail yard, Lancaster Street is blocked and a buildup of traffic is created three or more blocks onto the behind street. An obsolete nightmare. The area in and around this neighborhood should instead be made into a more tranquil and updated living space the way it was and should be many years ago. Sincerely Walter Marzinko Page 248 of 387 From: Garry Stevens Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 4:22 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; darryl.spencer@ region ofwaterloo.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Project at 528 Lancaster St. W. Good afternoon In a previous submission I outlined my main concerns about traffic on Lancaster and Bridgeport Rd. A significant fact that I did not mention was the major development on Bridge St. East. I understand this is to be a commercial/ industrial development. This has the potential for a large volume of traffic from employees of this new development. Anyone heading to the K/W core will no doubt end up on Lancaster St. Darryl Spencer indicated in the recent Zoom meeting on January 20, 2022, that a traffic study done in 2019 (pre-COVID) demonstrated problematic traffic issues. These will only be exacerbated by the commercial development. In order for the project to be approved as it has been proposed the developer would need many significant variances. Due to the number and nature of these variances it seems that this proposal should be rejected. appreciate your time and consideration of my submission, Garry Stevens, CPA -CA Page 249 of 387 From: Paula Smith Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202111:05 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed 528-550 Lancaster West development Hello Mr. Pinnell, I live at E Lang Crescent in Kitchener, which opens onto Lancaster directly at the proposed develpment. The current work there over the past year has greatly degraded life on our street because of the pounding, mess, and intermittent traffic diversion. When the traffic was diverted from Lancaster to Lang, we were unable to walk our dogs, or even cross the normally peaceful street; even parking in or pulling out of our own driveway was made extremely difficult. The proposed development will only exacerbate and extend such problems. Lancaster is a busy street, and it is hard enough to turn into or out of Lang onto Lancaster; the exit from the development apparently planned directly across from Lang will make that impossible, unless the city wants to put in a streetlight there, one half -block from the light at Bridgeport and Lancaster. Worse is what the development would do to the habitat. One of the attractions of our neighborhood is the wildlife and country -like feel of the surroundings. The eight -story building looming at the end of the road is bad enough, but three or four 26 -story buildings will block out the sun in the mornings. The proposed development promises to drop 1198 more "dwelling units" into the area -- more than doubling what there is now. The demand on the road, water, sewer, electric and gas infrastructure will not be confined to the buildings' footprint, but will bear on our neighborhood in unpleasant ways. Long story short: NO to this development. Paula Smith Page 250 of 387 From: Betty Green Sent: Sunday, November 14, 20217:03 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development: 528-550 Lancaster St West Dear Sir, It is with great concern that I learned recently of the proposed development of several large apartment buildings on Lancaster Street. I am a homeowner on General Drive and I have great difficulty turning onto Lancaster Street during rush hour in the morning and the evening. At rush hour between 4:30 and 6:00 pm in particular, when returning home, it can take an additional 15 minutes to get through the stoplights at Bridgeport and Lancaster. Vehicular traffic is delayed with people going to restaurants in the area and with commuters travelling to homes in Guelph and other small towns outside Kitchener. This will get worse when the new building beside Tim Hortons at Bridgeport and Lancaster becomes occupied and there are even more vehicles in the area. We are also concerned about the inevitable number of people who will choose to use General Drive as a parking lot, both for themselves and their visitors. Please advise us when there will be a meeting to discuss these plans. Thank you. Regards, Betty Green Page 251 of 387 From: Tania McCarthy Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 20211:44 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; ; Berry Vrbanovic Cc: Frank McCarthy; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Development at 528-550 Lancaster Street West Good evening, I am writing in concern about the proposed development at the above mentioned property. We are homeowners/residents on Lang Crescent, and therefore will be directly impacted with this project. We are not opposed to a potential development, we just want to ensure that the project meets all municipal bylaws, codes and standards and does not adversely impact the local community. My husband and I both are employed in fields that engage with development projects, and therefore have a good understanding of the nature of the work. We are primarily concerned about the number of dwelling units being proposed at the development Site, for the following reasons: The proposal includes an application for a zoning by-law amendment for parking. The developer is looking for a reduction for the parking requirements as stated in their traffic study reports: "The proposed development at 528-550 Lancaster Street West requires 1,378 parking spaces to comply with the Zoning By-law. With 808 parking spaces proposed (0.67 spaces per unit), the site has a potential shortfall of 570 spaces". While this may be appropriate for downtown Kitchener that is serviced by multiple bus routes and the LRT, this should not be an approved reduction for the Bridgeport and Lancaster area as the required public transit supports do not exist, and the location of our community is a fair distance from the downtown core. Specifically, the parking needs for the development appears to be reinforced by the recommendations in the parking study that overflow parking is available on Lang Crescent and General Drive. This is essentially moving the obligation for parking off the development to the local residential streets. It is not appropriate to reduce the parking density requirements for the development, if the solution is to burden the local residences by the development's lack of parking. It is also important to note the extent of the shortfall as well (570 spaces), as even a portion of that number would still present a very significant impact to the surrounding streets, especially Lang Crescent, where there are no sidewalks and pedestrian safety becomes an issue. In addition, we've reviewed the traffic study provided by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, in particular the findings of the non -signalized at the corners of General Drive / Lancaster and Lang Crescent / Lancaster. The traffic study finds little impact to these intersections during the peak AM and PM periods. This is not in line with our experience where there are currently significant delays making left hand turns in peak hours due to the significant traffic on Lancaster from both the south bound (uncontrolled through the roundabout at bridge) and north bound traffic (controlled by signalized intersection at Bridgeport). There is also a current safety issue which would be exacerbated with additional traffic, as visibility is poor when making a left hand turn from Lang onto Lancaster when the cars (and trucks) are blocking the view of oncoming traffic coming from three sources (advance left signal off Bridgeport, north on Lancaster, and a right from Riverbend Drive). Additionally, other concerns identified in the report were: Page 252 of 387 -Traffic studies were completed in March 2021 during COVID conditions (20-30% reduction in volume from 2019 conditions), and resulted in using 2019 data as base conditions which may not be representative - Forecasts did not accounting for community growth from other developments (i.e. MennoHomes at Bridgeport and Lancaster) and used a 0.0 percent increase in non -site traffic for future traffic volumes. - Parking surveys from "proxy sites" (to demonstrate a rationale for reduced density) were conducted between 7AM-7PM to estimate the maximum parking demand which may be biased low due to a significant portion of employed persons being at work/commuting at these times, as well as not accounting for typical times when visitors may be present. We ask that the City carefully review and validate the findings in this report, consider the true impacts of the proposed development, and ensure that the development does not adversely impact the local traffic flows,safety and enjoyment of the local community. Regards, Tania McCarthy Page 253 of 387 From: Garry Stevens Sent: Sunday, December 5, 202111:06 AM To: Scott Davey; Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development at 544 Lancaster St. W. Good morning I am reaching out to you concerning the proposed development of a highrise complex of 1200 units at the 544 Lancaster St. W. property. As a resident of 40+ years at. Springdale Dr., Kitchener, this concerns me due to several issues, particularly those related to current and future traffic congestion in the area. • Presently traffic can flow without stoplights or stop signs from Eby Crest Rd. or Bridge St. (from Breslau) to Margaret Avenue. Due to this it can be extremely difficult to egress into traffic onto Lancaster from other roads and driveways in this area. Assuming the residents of the new development would be exiting the 544 Lancaster property to go into K/W central areas , they would therefore need to make a left into already very heavy non-stop traffic. • The two recent developments at Lancaster St. and Bridgeport Rd. will increase traffic volumes. • Lancaster St. cannot be widened from this project to the traffic circle. • We currently already experience difficulty exiting either expressway offramps (exit HWY85 and exit HWY7) to turn left onto Bridgeport Rd. It can be very dangerous when traffic volumes are heavy; there have been numerous accidents here. • The extension of Wellington St. has significantly increased traffic flow on Riverbend Rd. • The former Steed and Evans property is presently under development and will no doubt substantially increase traffic in the area. In addition, I assumed developments of this magnitude needed to be located near mass transit modes, such as the LRT? I appreciate you taking the time to consider my concerns with the potential problems; particularly those related to traffic gridlock, in this matter. Regards, Garry R. Stevens, CPA CA Page 254 of 387 From: NORBERT GASIOR Sent: Friday, October 29, 20216:03 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] proposed development on 528-550 Lancaster st W Hello, I have recently received a notice about a multi building, high rise, development proposed at 528-550 Lancaster street West, Kitchener. As a resident of the area I'm very concerned about how these 1200 additional units are going to impact traffic along Lancaster St. This is only a two lane street and the business area along the Grand River has already made it difficult to turn in/out of my street (General Dr.) during the day. This new development is going to significantly increase traffic in an already busy and narrow route. Additionally, I don't agree with the proposed height of the new buildings - I am concerned that this area is getting too commercial and losing the original charm that attracted me here. I'm concerned that my property value will be negatively impacted as families prefer to stay away from commercial and densely populated neighbourhoods. Lastly, I'm concerned that this development does not include sufficient parking for all 1200 units - less than one spot per unit! As I mentioned previously, Lancaster is narrow and there isn't any street or public parking available. I am worried that these units will resort to using street parking on adjacent roads which is not acceptable. As a long time constituent of Ward 1, 1 urge you to reject this development proposal. It is too large for the area and I don't believe it has been properly thought through. Please let me know when and where the proposed neighborhood information session will be held. I'm going to invite Mr. Craig Norris from CBC Radio 1 to this session . My proposal is to convert this area to a small city park. Regards, Norbert Gasior Page 255 of 387 From: Clifton Young Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 202112:59 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development on Lancaster Dear Sirs, I was amazed to hear of the proposed development with 5 new (very high for the area) apartment buildings and 1198 "dwelling units' on Lancaster. Since a "dwelling unit" will usually involve more than one person and hence often more than one car, the effect on traffic will be overwhelming. Without a considerate driver to let you in it is already often very hard to make a left turn out of Lang onto Lancaster. The left turn lane from Bridgeport to Lancaster often stretches almost as far as Lang. Both will be much worse with this development. With 1198 units there will be more than 3000 residents and current public transport will be overwhelmed at busy times of the day. Lancaster is not the right place not these apartment buildings. Sincerely, Clifton Young Page 256 of 387 From: gustheusher Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 11:46 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Lancaster St highrise development Good day Mr. Pinnell, the zoom information session last Thursday January 20th was quite an eye opener to the expanses a development company will go to. I understand that more housing equates to more revenue for the cities coffers. I also understand the need for available affordable housing. I guess that second statement is a bit ambiguous as rental rates will continue to rise year over year according to what the market will accept, and the shortage issue will never cease as the city grows exponentially. In regards to the proposed Lancaster (just shy of 1200 unit) complex situated on a 2 lane roadway that is at maximum capacity currently during peak times seems absurd. I realize a traffic study was done by a third party, who I'm sure is used by the development company on a regular basis. Metrics can be manipulated to skew a proposal when there is an expectation on the developers side for a desired outcome. The study is not indicative of what traffic is truly like as the city has been growing by a minimum 2.8%; a study conducted during a pandemic incorporating pre 2020 statistics is not relevant and will not give a true representation by any means. I realize the surrounding neighbours thoughts on adding another 2000-4000 people on such a small footprint will be a mute point, but I'd like to ask and propose items. I don't feel the current proposal to exceed the 25M zoning limit by over 3X is acceptable nor is proposing .6 parking spots for 1200 units? Where will the rest of the "possible" 200-400 vehicles park? I would like to ask how the City of Kitchener Vision Zero Strategy will be incorporated into this neighbourhood? Lancaster is only a 2 lane street with no bike lanes. Lang Cresent will become a high speed cut through to the expressway for this complex, exceeding what it is now. Lang Cresent is a thin street with no sidewalks, it can be quite dangerous for neighbours to go for a walk with small children as it is. Before this development starts what steps would be required to make the end of Lang Cresent abutting Lancaster a dead end? It was a temporary dead end during the construction of the most recent 10 story complex for a month and sure made residents feel safe from high speed vehicle traffic. This would stop the countless numbers of transport trucks using the street as a staging area during construction and force the development company to plan accordingly for the 7-10+ construction years this development could inconvenience the entire neighbourhood community. It was noted by the development company that using Lang would be a "absolute last resort" which indicates that it would still be "fair game" for staging countless amounts of trucks that highly outweigh the City of Kitchener posted truck limit size signs at each end of the street. During the previous construction shut downs of Lancaster, Lang was a detour and really made a resident feel s00000 unheard. All residents of General and Lang voices fell on dead ears. The City passed it off to the Region, the Region passed it off to the City. The Ccc said call Bylaw, Bylaw said we are looking into it, but still allowed 18 wheel transports, car carriers and tanker trucks through for 10 days. Scott Davey was contacted and said he "just learned about it" 2 days after it all started, he said "what do you want me to do about it, it's the Region" we sure felt overwhelmed and were not "Loving our Hood". The wheelchair residents on the street were isolated in their house during a complete Covid lockdown for 10 days as they could not venture out to use the street, it was so sad! Dead ending Lang Cresent would also alleviate the highly increased amount of future vehicle traffic from a development this size will bring. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks, Gustavo Page 257 of 387 From: Connie & Jim Sent: Sunday, November 21, 20214:05 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 528-550 Lancaster St W (Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment) Hi Thanks for returning my call. My biggest concern is traffic on Lancaster Street. It is already very heavy. There are almost 1200 units in the proposed development. Presuming that residents have one vehicle, that's 1200 more cars on Lancaster Street, this street cannot handle that kind of traffic. It is difficult getting out of our driveway now, I can't imagine the chaos more traffic will cause. What's next? Widening Lancaster street. We have worked hard all our lives and are now seniors. Expropriation of our land would be devastating at this time in our lives. I realize that progress is inevitable but why choose one of the oldest area in Kitchener. We have have a lot of wildlife in our backyard. That will all be lost for the sake of progress. Is it progress or is it greed? There is a beautiful heritage house on the scheduled development. From my understanding it will be moved. How can you capture the ambiance, by plopping the house who knows where. That property has a lot of trees surrounding it. That is part of the beauty of the house. You can't recapture that by moving the house. Thanks for your time. Connie Stoppa Sent from my iPad On Nov 17, 2021, at 2:31 PM, Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.PinnelI@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Connie, It was good speaking with you this afternoon about the subject properties. I would appreciate your comments via email. Once I have your contact information, I will put you on our contact list for future notifications. Thanks, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca <image001.png> Page 258 of 387 From: Ronnie Magar Sent: Monday, October 25, 20214:57 PM To: Scott Davey; Andrew Pinnell Cc: Barry Cronkite Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 528-550 Lancaster St. W. - Application for Development - Comment Hello Scott and Barry, Thank you for the response. I understand the emergency services policy, but there is a secondary "emergency" lane way to general. the emergency services can use it if lang is closed. Which is why I also mentioned putting up bollards or gate so emergency vehicles can still get through. Also, Spring date is about 340m. Lang may not be a good candidate but it is also not a bad candidate. Regards, Ronnie Magar From: Scott Davey <Scott.Davey@kitchener.ca> Sent: October 25, 20214:50 PM To: Ronnie Magar < >; Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Cc: Barry Cronkite < Barry. Cron kite@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: 528-550 Lancaster St. W. - Application for Development - Comment Hi Mr. Margar, I'm not a planner but the feasability question on closing Lang at Lancaster was just recently asked and thought I'd copy/past the response from our City's Transportation Director (cc'd on this email) here: Thanks you for raising your concern/suggestion. I can appreciate that there have been challenges along Lang Crescent at times, particularly as a result of construction on Lancaster Street and closing Lang and Lancaster would certainly do that. However one of the primary considerations when contemplating a cul-de-sac type option is the City's emergency services policy. The policy dictates that a cul-de-sac should not be greater than 150m without a secondary/emergency services access and no greater than 300m if a secondary/emergency access can be provided. The length of Lang Crescent (and the cul-de- sacs that intersect with it) would extend well beyond that, as Lang Crescent is nearly a kilometer. Based on the emergency services policy, Lang Crescent is not a good candidate for a permanent closure at Lancaster Street. Page 259 of 387 Should you wish to discuss further, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Barry Cronkite, To be clear, should any significant development occur, I will do what is within my power to minimize non -local traffic during construction. I am also concerned with Lang being proposed as overflow parking. Answers to that question will come as we go through the planning process. Respectfully, Scott Davey Councillor, Ward 1 City of Kitchener From: Ronnie Magar Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021, 4:36 p.m. To: Scott Davey; Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 528-550 Lancaster St. W. - Application for Development - Comment Further to my email below, I found the traffic study. I have an objection on the following statement: Should the site's parking demand exceed the supply, on -street parking on Lang Crescent and General Drive is available within 200 metres of the subject site for short-term parking needs. IMO, Lang cres is allowed parking on ONE side only, just from the current residence on Lang Cres, the street parking gets full. This is another reason to close Lang from Lancaster. Regards, Ronnie Magar From: Ronnie Magar Sent: October 25, 20212:57 PM To: scott.davey@kitchener.ca <scott.davev@kitchener.ca>; andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca Page 260 of 387 <andrew.pin nelI@kitchener.ca> Subject: 528-550 Lancaster St. W. - Application for Development - Comment Hello Andrew and Scott, I live at E Lang Cres, which is just down the street from the development. I am not opposed to the development in any way. However, I truly believe that Lang Cres should then be closed off from Lancaster if the development is to go through. You can close off Lang from Lancaster by either bollards or gates, or a full straight through boulevard (with sidewalks est.). Closing off Lang to Lancaster will stop any traffickers from cutting through to Bridgeport during busy hours of the day. Even today we get quite a few. Lang is a nice street with no sidewalks and the large green front yards are nice. Having cars zip through from Lancaster to bridge port possess a threat to safety, and the overall landscape to Lang Cres. a few questions I have that I can't seem to find any information on: • traffic study? • are these buildings condominiums? • When is the neighbourhood information session? And finally: Will the city actually take into considerations closing Lang form Lancaster? Regards, Ronnie Magar Page 261 of 387 From: Walter M Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:50 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Comments regarding 528-550 Lancaster Street West (Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment) Attachments: allen 2 20211104_145026.jpg Further to my earlier comments regarding the planned development on Lancaster street West, I would like to make further recommendations. Why is there a rusch at this time to have a virtual meeting on Jan January 20th 2022 knowing very well that most of the contacted people are not able to attend a virtual zoom meeting. ( To me it looks like it is done deliberately this way, trying to push this project through no matter what, is it because it is an old neighborhood ? ) This important meeting needs to be held as an in person meeting with required masks. ( a similar project of a high story apartment building did not go through a few months ago in the proposed Queen- Mill street area.) This proposal is a super high density ratio project and will create a very high undesirable effect on the whole Bridgeport community as well as on the adjacent Grand River natural environment. As an alternative, I would recommend having this project moved to a more suitable area. The city of kitchener could sell land (if it is owned by the city) on its Rockway Golf Course property as there is no need to have a 19 hole golf course in the city of Kitchener. There is ample room to still have a 9 hole golf course at Rockway, the nearby areas already have 3 golf courses. This project would have excellent connections to the major high traffic car systems connection Roads. I attached a picture of the project that was done on Allen Street West in Waterloo. Making the Bridgeport area look more like an upscale neighborhood, where people would like to live, like they do on Allen Street in Waterloo would make the most sense. Sincerely Walter Marzinko On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 3:35 PM Walter M wrote: Hello Andrew Here is my mailing address. Walter Marzinko On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 5:23 PM Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.PinnelI@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hello, Page 262 of 387 Thank you for your comments regarding the subject development applications. So far, I have received a significant amount of feedback from the community regarding these applications. Your comments may be considered and summarized, as part of the planning process, in the following ways: • In the preparation of a `What We Heard' summary report; • As part of my Planning analysis; and • Ina recommendation report to Council. Here are the next steps in the planning process: HDkedfdowobwolt NeighbourhoodSiaffcansalidatitallfeedbackinod�erin CarecildecisimCOMT1eeivted �seatS6FGVM alk information �finaliaeamcmemmiationtahecaesidened �backtoresWentswhepariti'atec, t bynNhd vGly 2)Session bxP6MiDgCannitteeOld CiityCamcil iaiefarnatiaasessi®as p taamff I will reach out to you with the details of the upcoming Neighbourhood Meeting, when it is scheduled. I can confirm that I have added you to the circulation list and you will receive further updates regarding these applications. However, I request that you please provide me with your mailing address as well. Learn more about the project, share your thoughts and understand your appeal rights, visit www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications. Sincerely, Page 263 of 387 Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca MOMMUNW1'ou & `t, Page 264 of 387 From: Francis Bauaman Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 20215:41 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Comments regarding 528-550 Lancaster Street West (Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment) On Oct 20, 2021, at 5:23 PM, Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> wrote: Hello, Thank you for your comments regarding the subject development applications. So far, I have received a significant amount of feedback from the community regarding these applications. Your comments may be considered and summarized, as part of the planning process, in the following ways: • In the preparation of a `What We Heard' summary report; • As part of my Planning analysis; and • In a recommendation report to Council. Here are the next steps in the planning process: <image001 Jpg> I will reach out to you with the details of the upcoming Neighbourhood Meeting, when it is scheduled. I can confirm that I have added you to the circulation list and you will receive further updates regarding these applications. However, I request that you please provide me with your mailin_g address as well. Learn more about the project, share your thoughts and understand your appeal rights, visit www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications. Sincerely, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image003.png> <image005.png> <image003.png> <image006.png> <image003.png> Page 265 of 387 From: Clifton Young Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:46 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Invitation to Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting regarding 528-550 Lancaster Street West Andrew, We listened with interest to The discussion the other night. We still have concerns as follows 1. Regarding the request to ease rules that were made for much lower buildings: presumably there are reasons for the rules, with many much higher buildings they should be made more stringent not reduced 2. The number of parking spaces planned for the development is not enough, the majority of tenants will have at least one car, with two bedrooms in many apartments there will be quite a few with two. More "Guest" spaces will also be needed especially if there are to be commercial outlets on lower floors. It should not be assumed that either residents or visitors will have parking room on either Lang or General. 3. it is nice that there will be spaces for bikes. Having ridden my bike from this area to U of W for nearly 30 years that a nice feature but to assume that a number of residents will do without a car for that reason is a stretch. Riding bikes in the winter with snow or ice is very dangerous, Once in late November snow fell unexpectedly when I was at the University; coming home I fell going under the expressway bridge because I couldn't see the ridge between the pavement and the gutter because it was hidden by snow; that wasn't even because it was slippery. I never rode in the winter. I think KW is overly optimistic about the extent of bike usage in the winter, you rarely even see motorcycles at this time of year, you just have to look at the use if the bike lanes these days. 4. Traffic. The city's response to this concern was a bit vague. Making a left from Lang onto Lancaster can be very difficult already, I often have to rely on a driver being courteous and letting me through (if he notices me) when he is stopped for the Bridgeport light. Making a left onto Bridgeport Road from Lang is occasionally difficult because of traffic flow; the queue for a left turn from Bridgeport to Lancaster already often reaches almost as far as Lang and it will get longer with this development making the turn the very difficult. 5 Lang was the detour for communicating from Bridgeport to Lancaster during recent construction. Using a relatively narrow street with no sidewalks is a very dangerous practice and should not happen. Sincerely, On Thursday, December 23, 2021, 11:03:39 a.m. EST, Andrew Pinnell <andrew.pin nella-kitchener.ca> wrote: Thank you for sending me comments regarding the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment related to the subject properties. I have received a significant amount of feedback from the community. I am emailing to invite you to a virtual Neighbourhood Meeting regarding these applications. The virtual meeting has been scheduled for January 20, 2022, beginning at 6:30pm. Please see the attached postcard for more details (note that a physical postcard may have also been mailed to you). The Zoom meeting link and details are provided on the postcard. Page 266 of 387 I look forward to meeting with you. If you have any questions, please contact me. Seasons Greetings, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 and rew.pin nella-kitchener.ca nl Page 267 of 387 From: J & H Honch Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 9:28 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Transportation Planning (SM) Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE 5 Condo Buildings on Lancaster: Traffic on Lang Cres during Construction Attachments: PXL_20210422_175541470.MP.jpg; PXL_20210422_180231578.jpg; PXL_20210423_193931031.M P.jpg; PXL_20210423_193659924.M P.jpg; PXL_20210423_193954504.M P.jpg Hi Andrew and Aaron, Thank you for the opportunity to join this evening's community outreach meeting regarding the proposed 5 condo buildings on Lancaster St. I am a resident at 0 Lang Cres. I am around the bend from Lancaster St but am directly impacted by it regarding traffic concerns and conditions when there is construction and if there is increased traffic (given the proposed condo structures). Attached are some pictures from April 2021. They show the back to back traffic that was rerouted down Lang Cres during construction. Not only was it cars and GRT buses, but also massive Transport Trucks and Construction Trucks .. despite the NO TRUCKS signs posted at both sides of Lang Cres. Our street has no sidewalks. I was 7 months pregnant. Now I have a baby and I walk Lang Cres with my stroller and my neighbour with her stroller every day. The safety concerns that we share RE: increased traffic from construction AND 808 more parking spaces at these 5 condo buildings is VERY REAL. No Traffic Study will give you the pictures I have taken from my home of cars backed up around the bend all the way to my house because of cars turning onto Bridgeport from Lang. It is insane, and there is no way emergency services could have got to my house if I needed them while pregnant. In April 2021, 1 sent these pictures to and was in communication with Josh Graham (Supervisor, Corridor Management, Region of Waterloo I Transportation and Environmental Services), Steve Sieunarine (Engineering Technologist - Corridor Management, Regional Municipality of Waterloo) and Scott Davey (city councilor). I am happy to forward some of the emails I sent.My experience talking to these men was similar to what Deb shared this evening. Despite conversation, nothing is improved. Trucks continue to park on Lang. Trucks continue to go down Lang. Cars speed down and jam up Lang. City officials, like those above, tell me their hands are tied and they say, as long as a sign is posted, they can't do anything more. I waste my time emailing people and Bylaw, but at the end of the day, nothing changed and there is an ugly, cheaply built building at the end of Lancaster that is a complete eyesore in our community. Its construction put my safety and my baby's safety at risk, on my own street. Studies are great. But they don't address reality. These pictures show our reality on Lang Cres when there are condos built on Lancaster St. Even if you attempt to increase foot traffic, bike, Page 268 of 387 and transportation use, the developers are allowing for up to 808 more cars to occupy this area .. and Lancaster and Lang Cres CANNOT take it. Thank you for your listening - I know you are dealing with many frustrated citizens like myself. We appreciate when we are honestly listened to, .. it means alot. Sometimes it just feels like only developers are listened to. Heather Honch Page 269 of 387 From: Mike Palmer Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 10:12 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] re 528, 544-550 Lancaster St Development ZBA21/015/L/AP Gentlemen, If it's not too late, I would like to raise a point regarding the densification activities currently underway across the city and, in particular, a development application re 528, 544-550 Lancaster St. Section 2.2.3 "Urban Growth Centres", of the document "A Place To Grow" - Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe" outlines minimum target densities by 2031. Further, 2.2.3 (2)(b) specifies a target of "200 residents and jobs combined per hectare" for "Downtown Kitchener." If I may offer the following for consideration: First, this density level is specific to "Downtown Kitchener", not surrounding areas such as Bridgeport West. Second, even if we allow that such densities apply to "Kitchener" en masse and not only to the downtown core, I question the disproportionate level of densification proposed for this specific development. With a total land area of 1.67 -hectares a more appropriate "Total People/Jobs" figure would be 1.67 x 200 or 334, in contrast to the 2121 figure supplied by the Applicant in the Planning Justification Report. That number of people/jobs could be accommodated by a much more restrained and appropriate development of the site: With a residential apartment PPU density value of 1.77 (same as that used by the Applicant), 334 people could be housed in 188 units, something that could be serviced by a trio of, say, eight -story buildings. While buildings of this height are still objectionable in terms of zoning bylaw height restrictions currently in place, it is a much more palatable height and development scale overall for the long-time residents of the area. I just want to reiterate that I believe it is unfair to so disproportionately burden mature, existing neighborhoods with densities and building scales far out of scale with provincial targets. Further, I feel that the recent success of Belmont Village residents in limiting out -of -proportion building development in their neighborhood sets a precedent that should be applied to other neighborhoods like ours, when it comes to council planning decisions. Thank you for your time. Mike Palmer Bridgeport West Page 270 of 387 From: DAN CURRIE Sent: Monday, October 18, 20217:06 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re application for development on 544 Lancaster W Dear sirs, It has been drawn to my attention that a major development is being planned for the area in which I reside, ( Lang Dr, Springdale Dr and Lancaster Dr) and I have not received any information through a ' notice of development' or ANYTHING asking for feedback on this planned project. I know your next steps involve a neighbourhood information session, but, having been involved in past 'sessions', I know it is important to be involved from the very beginning. I am shocked that I had to learn about this proposal from a local private flyer and that the initial feedback is due by Monday, November 1. This is extremely disappointing. We are a neighbourhood; this proposal and request for feedback should be shared with ALL residents on Lang Dr, Horizon Crescent, Springdale Dr, Lancaster Rd and General Drive in the very least. I would expect that the pertinent information will be distributed to all residents in the affected neighbourhood. Sincerely, DanCurrie Sent from my iPad Page 271 of 387 From: Norman Falk Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 4:12 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re proposed development on Lancaster Hi Andrew, my wife Harriet and I live at M Bridgeport Rd E, Kitchener ON -. Some of our neighbours on Lang Crescent gave me your contact info. We have read the proposed development and have some comments. We are very concerned and the size and magnitude of this potential project. 1) According to what we read, 1378 parking spaces are required but they only have enough for 808 for a shortfall of 570 parking spaces. Well, it is obvious to us that at the very least, the number of units has to be reduced to match the maximum number of parking spaces available. 2) The new building at the corner of Bridgeport Road and Lancaster fronting onto Bridgeport Road has 5 stories. The building across, being built has either 6 or 7 stories. How can 5 buildings ranging from 10 to 16 to 26 stories fit in with the surrounding area? It does not! Not even close! 3) What about the traffic on Lancaster! Even now, there is so much traffic especially at rush hour times, it would be impossible to walk across the street from their suggested temporary parking solution! Temporary? For how long? Forever? Probably because unless they have enough spaces, where are the tenants going to park? What about visitors? Where are they going to park? I am sure the residents on Lang Crescent are not going to be happy about this crazy idea! 4) Due to the crazy increase in traffic, a left turn into the property cannot be allowed when driving from the roundabout to Bridgeport Road because it would back up traffic like crazy! Or many cars would drive down Lang to get to Bridgeport Road!! 5) The number of units should be reduced to buildings no more than 5 or 6 stories with parking for tenants and also for visitors so that everyone can park on that property and not on neighbouring streets. 6) What about in the winter for snow removal, no one can park overnight to allow for snow removal. If temporary parking is allowed, where will they be able to park during the night when snow removal is required? These are just a few things that we have thought of, We may think of a few more. This developer also has not mentioned that there will be affordable housing! That is what we need in the region! I am sure these units will NOT be affordable! And way to many in a small area. Please keep us informed of any meetings or other info as we have been Bridgeport residents for about 39 years! We are concerned about the changes to this wonderful area! Norman and Harriet Falk Sent from my iPad Page 272 of 387 From: Stephen Placko Sent: Sunday, October 10, 202111:14 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding Applications for 528 Lancaster St W OPA21/010/L/AP and ZBA21/L/AP Regarding Applications for 528 Lancaster St W OPA21/010/L/AP and ZBA21/L/AP The proposed development on this small site of 5 buildings is unacceptable and strongly objected to. We are not opposed to development of this site with a more appropriate number of buildings with a reduced number of dwelling units. 1. In order to accommodate the 5 planned buildings on the site they require zoning changes that have the buildings situated at the extreme edges of the site with little to no green spaces, and increase the maximum build heights and storeys to over 3X the current limit. 2. Their study recommends adding a center turning lane on Lancaster from Bridgeport road to Shirk Place to handle the increased traffic. They also promote the city creating bicycle lanes in order to justify inadequate parking available for all of the dwellings. I do not see how an additional lane and 2 bicycles lanes can be accommodated on the existing road or expanding the width of the road. 3. The zoning requires 1,378 parking spaces and their plan only provides for 808. A serious shortfall in this day and age when most households have 2 vehicles. Their proposal suggests using Lang Cr. and General Dr. for extra parking. These residential streets should not be used as proxy parking. 4. Per their arborist report all 211 trees are to be removed leaving a barren lot. Another development at 544 Bridgeport Rd E preserved some of the trees on the site after redevelopment, contains significant green space, and parking. This development is only concerned with maximizing profit without taking into account the needs of the current and future residents of the neighborhood. Too often developments are completed without thought or regard for the actual impact they have. Regards, Stephen and Donna Placko Page 273 of 387 Attn: Mr. Andrew Pinnell Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 November 1, 2021 RE: OPA/ZBA proposal for 528-550 Lancaster Street West Dear Mr. Pinnell, as a proponent of infill and intensification, I felt conflicted as I gathered my thoughts on this application but its long-term negative effects on the residents and businesses in the Lancaster Business Park compel me to speak out. This application is far beyond an appropriate scale needed for the revitalization of the Lancaster area nor has it been planned for in the City's vision. Most concerning is the traffic impact to the Lancaster Street and Bridgeport Road intersection. As has been noted in the Applicant's traffic study, most of the new tenants will want to travel towards this intersection. Today, during the pandemic, the current usage of roads may not be as visible, but one should look towards pre -pandemic times where "back up" onto Riverbend and Bridgeport Roads was a common occurrence. Adding significantly more cars will only aggravate the problem, which to the current users and business owners concerned with access for their clients poses a serious concern. At peak times especially, the one lane per (east -west direction) intersection will become congested. Moreover, additional movements in and out of the Tim Hortons right next to this intersection will impact through traffic. Even without these additional 1198 units there are issues with long wait times to turn into and out of this establishment. As the Tim Hortons' driveway is near the Lancaster/Bridgeport intersection it contributes to longer wait times on a daily basis already. The site and building's design intensity are also questionable. In an area considerably away not only from urban cores prioritized for intensification but from any other development at this scale in its vicinity (of comparable density and height) it seems highly incompatible. I appreciate the current mixed-use zoning imposed to foster redevelopment and new urban forms, but this proposal presents too far a move from even the City's intentions. It almost triples the allowed FSR and exceeds the height limit by 2 to 3 times —that is by 8 to 18 stories. While it may just meet setbacks and separation distances, with its large floor plates and tall Page 1 of 2 Page 274 of 387 heights, it will be an extreme departure from the envisioned planning framework. Its visual impact on the area's quaint suburban surroundings will be extreme and long lasting. With the above in mind, please consider not to accept the proposal as presented and work towards a much less dense and tall urban forms for this site. I am certain that an agreeable solution can be found — one that provides new housing sensitive to its context and impacts the surrounding traffic less — more in line with the current zoning. Sincerely, Peter Benninger Page 2 of 2 Page 275 of 387 Dear Andrew Pinnell, Scott Davey I would like to comment on the proposal for 550 Lancaster St. W. I recognize the need for high density housing in Kitchener in order to save the area farmland, but I must challenge the assumptions put forward by the developer. Primarily, Lancaster/Bridgeport is not not a pedestrian friendly section part of our city. Residence will all need a means of personal transportation. I have lived and walked here for over 25 years. From the corner of Lancaster and Bridge, there is nothing but heavy traffic. If you go: -South you walk a sidewalk with no setback along a four lane road over a bridge covering the express way. There is a reason that bridge is seldom used. It offers access of course to lovely Breithaupt park, but only after an uncomfortable 20 minute walk. The park is pleasantly and easily accessible with a car. -West you again walk along a walkway with no setback from a busy 4 lane street. Here you have the added challenge of crossing 6 lanes of ramp traffic, before, after a 20 minute walk, you reach friendly walk -able neighbourhoods. On the other hand it is a very quick drive past all the unfriendly attractions. -North along Lancaster there is no sidewalk until you cross the street, and what is there of course has no set back. Then you turn wet onto Bridge St. (again no setback from a busy street) until you get to the school fifteen minutes from the Lancaster/Bridge corner. You can continue to take the "marsh challenge" or the long Bridge Street sidewalk to get to wonderful Bechtel Park. This uncomfortable 20 minute walk could be done in only 4 or 5 minutes in a car. -East takes you to a superb Walter Bean trail, and this is truly accessible, for many. The hill at the creek though puts a quick end to walks for seniors and small children. There is no play ground in this area that should be a requirement. In three directions there is no pedestrian friendly destination without an uncomfortably stressful, 20 minute passage first. That defeats the purpose of a walk in the first place. I agree there are amenities close by, but people will only access them with a car. The proposed parking to unit ratio I feel is inadequate to provide a pleasant living experience for the residence. All the units proposed are 1 or 2 bedrooms. People will need to get out often to enjoy even a basic life style. Even if they work from home, they will want a car. Lancaster North bound provides a wonderful access the stress relieving country environment. But of course you need a car. The access to Kitchener, Waterloo, and the expressway is excellent, but it is of course designed for cars. The supply of cars on the road is not going to drop as was suggested in one of the studies. When people cannot afford houses their next large purchase item of choice will be a car. Autonomous cars are going to further exacerbate the problem by keeping more seniors on the road for much longer. Please reconsider the parking spot allotments. These future tenants will need to have a car to live here. Comparisons to development closer to the city core do not seem valid. Looking at rental units in the immediate area now would suggest a minimum of one car per unit. Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy letter. Sincerely, Graham Day. Page 276 of 387 To whom it may concern In response to the development proposed for 528-550 Lancaster St. W. Kitchener My name is Deborah Geiger, I reside a� Kitchener and I am writing to oppose such a development. I have many reasons for this, the first being the traffic that is going to congest the peaceful community of Bridgeport. We do not want to feel like we are living in the middle of the expressway, with non-stop traffic. That is exactly what will happen when you add another 2500 residents to this area. That figure comes from only 2 people residing in every unit that is proposed. This is ridiculous, do we, the residents of Bridgeport just have to accept this? I am ready to go door to door to get a petition signed. I have been directly dealing with Construction on a daily basis due to the apartments built behind my home on Lancaster & Bridgeport and now the most recent directly at the end of Lang Cr, where it meets at Lancaster St. This has been going on since March of 2020. Constant back up peepers and trucks lining up and down Lang Cres. with full loads on, including heavy equipment and every single thing imaginable to build that apartment. When entering Lang Cr there is a sign clearly stating no heavy trucks. When calling the city of Kitchener, I am told that, this is actually a traffic calming sign. Clearly it is not. The developer of this site has no regard whatsoever for the existing community already here. They have shown this by example of what I have dealt with now for over a year. The construction foreman even had the audacity to pile Road closed signs on my neighbor's lawn the night before they were closing the road. This street was repaved 2 years before all this construction started and clearly my tax paying dollars have gone to waste paving it, as they treat our street like there own personal construction site. The trucks line up in front of my house for hours idling and sitting there waiting to get into the site across the street. I thought we had idling bylaws in this city. Apparently not. I have seen old ladies literally jumping out the way to avoid being hit by the trucks the city allows to come down Lang Cr, saying it is part of the construction area. I do not see any fencing or other things that are required on a construction site. This entire development does not fit into the character of our neighborhood. The proposed buildings are not appropriate in massing and height and are not compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighborhood. The first building that is almost completed on the site proposed for this mega city development is an eyesore already. These buildings will forever change our landscape and cast shadows down on every in the area. We have no high rises at all in Bridgeport and do not welcome them. With affordable housing needed, why are you are trying to pass off units that will clearly not be affordable for the people who need the housing. Trying to jam that many people into such a small area can only lead to overcrowding, traffic congestion and a noise level that we in Bridgeport are not accustomed to. I undertook the reading of the 54 -page REINS report (Residential Intensification in Established neighborhood's) from Feb of 2017. This study was specifically done for the city of Kitchener, and paid for by the tax payers of Kitchener. It has many recommendations that reinforce our position. The city took a close look at the planning approval process for development in established neighborhoods to see if changes to the process were necessary. The purpose was to develop a clear and fair process for Page 277 of 387 approving development projects in these established neighborhoods. Through the study, several recommendations were made to update the process for developments with the intent to further ensure that they blend in with the neighborhood. They are clearly not blending with the community of Bridgeport. Please consider this letter my first formal objection to the proposed massive condominium development that will forever change the face of our quiet community. Deborah Geiger Page 278 of 387 From: Garett Stevenson Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 2:48 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: FW: Proposed Buildings at Lancaster & Bridgeport Road FYI From: Planning (SM) <planning@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:57 PM To: Garett Stevenson <Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.ca> Cc: Transportation Planning (SM) <transportationplanning@kitchener.ca> Subject: FW: Proposed Buildings at Lancaster & Bridgeport Road FYI, pls see email below. -Sandra. -----Original Message ----- From: =On Behalf Of Carl & Jean Schaefer Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 12:17 PM To: Internet - Info <Info@kitchener.ca> Subject: Proposed Buildings at Lancaster & Bridgeport Road We are deeply concerned about the construction of buildings being considered for this high -traffic area. We live even now, we find it extremely difficult to turn off of Lang Crescent either onto Lancaster or Bridgeport Road. This added traffic will be horrendous and we fear it will cause accidents whether in a vehicle or even walking. Please consider those of us who live nearby and also the other daily traffic coming and going up and down Lancaster Street. We implore you to please, please, please DO NOT ADD TO THIS HIGH TRAFFIC AREA!!! Origin: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/contact-us.aspx This email was sent to you by Carl & Jean Schaefer through https://www.kitchener.ca. Page 279 of 387 1.1.11 Goodmans November 1, 2021 City of Kitchener Development Service Department Planning Division 200 King Street West Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Attention: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner Dear Mr. Pinnell: Re: Comments on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications 528-550 Lancaster Street West On behalf of our client, MG Properties Ltd. ("MG"), we are providing preliminary comments on the official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications (the "Applications") that have been submitted to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties at 528-550 Lancaster Street West (the "Subject Lands"). MG owns lands directly abutting the Subject Lands along its eastern boundary, which has been developed for a one -storey office building (the "MG Lands"). MG has significant concerns regarding the development proposed by the Applications (the "Proposed Development"). The Proposed Development represents a massive overdevelopment of the Subject Lands, contrary to applicable policy and good planning, and will have significant negative impacts on the MG Lands. The Applications as submitted should be refused by the City. The Proposed Development It is our understanding from the materials available on the City's website that the Proposed Development would be comprised of 1,198 dwelling units in five high-rise residential buildings: one at 10 storeys, one at 16 storeys, two at 20 storeys, and one at 26 storeys. 250 m2 of commercial space is proposed in a podium structure. Parking is proposed to be located in a below - grade structure. No on-site recreational amenity space is proposed. The Scale of the Proposed Development within the Applicable Policy Context The Proposed Development proposes a scale, height and density of development that is inconsistent with applicable City land use planning policy, and represents overdevelopment of the Subject Lands. Page 280 of 387 Page 2 1111 Goodmans With a site area of 1.68 hectares, the Proposed Development would have a density of 713 units per hectare and 1,267 persons and jobs per hectare. That density is 533% higher than the minimum density of 200 persons and jobs per hectare that A Place to Grow — The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe requires to be accommodated in the City's Urban Growth Centre, where the City's highest densities are planned and supported by the ION rapid transit investment. The Proposed Development would have a floor space ratio of 5.8. The Proposed Development would likely represent one of the most dense developments in the entire Region. The Subject Lands are within an "Urban Corridor" on Map 2 — Urban Structure of the City's Official Plan ("City OP"). Most of the Subject Lands are designated "Mixed Use" on Map 3 — Land Use of the City's Official Plan, with a portion currently designated Business Park Employment proposed to be converted to the Mixed Use designation. Urban Corridors are one of the Intensification Areas identified in the City OP. Section 3.C.2.38 of the City OP provides that the planned function of Urban Corridors is to provide for a range of retail and commercial uses, and intensification opportunities that should be transit -supportive. Urban Corridors are to function as the spine of a community, as well as a destination for surrounding neighbourhoods. The policy also provides that strengthening linkages and establishing compatible interfaces between the Urban Corridors and surrounding Community Areas and Industrial Employment areas are priorities for development in these areas. Section 3.C.2.37 likewise provides that Urban Corridors are intended to have strong pedestrian linkages and be integrated with neighbouring residential and employment uses. The Urban Corridor function noted above is reflected in the Mixed Use land use designation policies of the City OP. The Preamble in section 15.D.4 provides that: ... permitted commercial and retail uses within lands designed Mixed Use play a key role in achieving and maintaining the planned function and ensuring the vibrancy of the Urban Structure Components these uses are within. Accordingly, although residential development is permitted and encouraged within lands designated Mixed Use, it is not the intent of lands designated Mixed Use to lose the planned retail and commercial function to service surrounding neighbourhoods. The City OP includes the following among the objectives of the Mixed Use designation: 15.4.1 To achieve an appropriate mix of commercial, residential and institutional uses on lands designated Mixed Use. 15.4.4. To retain and support a viable retail and commercial presence within lands designated Mixed Use by protecting and improving existing commercial uses and allowing for new appropriately scaled commercial uses that primarily serve the surrounding areas. Page 281 of 387 Page 3 1111 Goodmans The Proposed Development is a very high-density residential development that is largely self contained, and is inconsistent with the planned function of an Urban Corridor. It is not integrated in any material way with neighbouring residential and employment uses, and contains an insignificant amount of commercial space relative to the size of the site. The Proposed Development represents a huge increase in the amount of residential density, with no minimum amount of commercial space proposed. Moreover, it is not clear how the Proposed Development complies with the Mix -2 zone provisions, the purpose of which is to accommodate mixed use buildings at a medium density within Urban Corridors, and which require non-residential uses abutting the entire length of the street line facade.' In terms of permitted density, section 15.D.4.17(b) of the City OP provides that a maximum floor space ratio of only 2.0 is generally permitted on lands in an Urban Corridor. Section 15.D.4.19 allows a maximum floor space index of up to 4.0 as an exception, where higher density development is desirable, considering certain criteria. A maximum floor space index of up to 5.0 is permitted where, among other things, a below grade parking structure is provided. The proposed development is seeking an even higher density with a floor space index of 5.8, with no justification. The Planning Justification Report mentions the retention of heritage structures. We note, however, there is no definite plan proposed for how to deal with the proposed structures, and off-site relocation is proposed as an option. In terms of height, sections 15.D.4.22 and 15.D.4.23 impose an 8 story height limit on Mixed Use lands in an Urban Corridor, which may be increased by up to 50% (i.e., 12 storeys) in a mixed use building with residential uses, provided that compatibility with adjacent lands is maintained. The Proposed Development is seeking a heights that are more than double the maximum permitted. The nature and scale of the Proposed Development is not appropriate on lands designated Mixed Use in an Urban Corridor. If the density proposed is permitted anywhere in the City, it should be on lands in locations higher in the urban structure hierarchy, such as in the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Areas, that are serviced by the ION rapid transit service. We note that we have briefly reviewed the Transportation Impact Study by Paradigm submitted in support of the Proposed Development, at a very high level. We do not understand why the study does not analyze the potential impact of the development at the Lancaster/Bridgeport/Riverbend intersection. We believe it should be provided. Our client also questions the conclusions of the study regarding traffic operations at Lancaster and Bridge Streets, which, although developed with a roundabout, currently experiences significant traffic backups at the current two-lane bridge structure in rush hour. The traffic operations at this location need to be carefully reviewed by the City. Finally, we also question whether appropriate consideration has been given to the community infrastructure required to service the large population in the Proposed Development (over 2,100 residents). While the property does have access to passive recreational trails along the Grand River, the only parkland within walking distance appears to be Lancaster Park, that contains only Zoning By-law 2019-051, s.8.2, note 2 Page 282 of 387 Page 4 GoodmanLLP s a play structure in terms of recreational facilities. There appears to be no on-site outdoor recreational amenities included in the Proposed Development. Impact of the Proposed Development on the MG Lands As noted above the MG Lands are currently developed with a one -storey office building. Site plan approval in principle was granted for a one -storey expansion to the existing building in February 2020. The approval included an outdoor amenity area for employees between the building and the property line of the Subject Lands. The Proposed Development proposes to place a 20 storey building and a 26 storey building right on the property line separating the Subject Lands and the MG Lands, with zero setback. We note that not even the 7.5 metre setback that would normally be required by the standard MIX -2 zone provisions is being provided. The Proposed Development will entirely overwhelm the building on the MG Lands, and cast shadows on the property, including in the proposed outdoor amenity area. MG also objects to the impact that the Proposed Development could have on any additional future development potential for the MG Lands. The current EMP -5 zoning of the MG Lands would permit considerable additional development. It would not be appropriate land use planning for the proposed overdevelopment of residential uses on the Subject Lands to potentially preclude the intensification of additional employment uses on the MG Lands. Thank you for taking MG's preliminary comments into account. MG reserves its right to make additional comments throughout the process. Yours truly, Goodmans LLP Robert Howe cc: Scott Davey, Ward 1 Councillor Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning 7213287 Page 283 of 387 To: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, City of Kitchener From: David and Barbara Arthur, We have followed the proposed development at 528-550 Lancaster Street West and attended the online neighbourhood meeting on January 20. We live at —and are obviously familiar with that part of Kitchener/Bridgeport and the streets and traffic in that part of the city. We heard from many participants who voiced concerns about a number of factors including impacts on the environment, limited amenities, parking and traffic. We realize not all assessments have yet been completed. This letter wishes to focus on traffic as a major concern. The representatives of the development and from the city seemed to downplay this concern. There are already three significant contributors to increased traffic in the Lancaster St./Bridge St./Bridgeport Rd. area —the new high rise next to Tim Horton's, the new high rise Lutheran Church/apartment, and the growing housing development across the Bridgeport bridge on the other side of the Grand River. The population and numbers of people from those three contributors are growing and yet to be realized. The increase in traffic from an additional five high rise buildings and 1,198 dwelling units will be significant and troubling for all users of that corridor. It will be a situation for which there will be virtually no chance of improvement. Lancaster St. and Bridge St. are only two lanes as is the Bridgeport bridge. There would appear to be no way to widen either to four lanes. Shirk Place and Lang Crescent offer no useful alternate routes. The lack of sidewalks on those streets just makes it worse. There will be only one access to Lancaster for the couple thousand residents of the five new buildings. By comparison, the many high rise buildings in or near the downtown areas of Kitchener and Waterloo have networks of literally dozens of intersecting streets running north - south and east -west offering many options for traffic. The Lancaster St./Bridge St. area has no options and no possibility to create options. With the natural areas of Bechtel Park, along the Grand River and Forwell Creek, and the natural areas bordering the Expressway, there are no new major streets possible. Public transportation is very limited with one bus route that has several stops along Bridge St. and Lancaster St., all of which already stop traffic throughout the day and especially during busy times of the day. Altogether, traffic is a major problem for this development with no solution. Page 284 of 387 Dear Andrew Pinnell/ Scott Davey This is part 2 of my thoughts on the 528 - 550 Lancaster St. W. Development. As I stated in my first attachment; I am pro development. We need higher density within the city boundaries to ensure that farm lands are protected. I very much like high density areas that seem to be spreading across the city. I feel is is good planning. That being said though, we must get the planning right because it is going to be there for a long time. Have you considered the affects on the Lancaster/Bridgeport intersection as one thousand plus people streaming out of this development to get to work in the morning. Whether they are taking the bus or driving a car, the tie-up in traffic will be significant for cars going in any direction. Pedestrians will predominantly be heading south or east. They will have to cross the street to get to existing bus stops. This is going to frustrate and cause delays for the many drivers wanting to turn at this corner. The side walks are not now wide enough to handle this kind of pedestrian traffic. Another bus route along Riverbend might help alleviate this problem but I don't think it would be enough. Underground parking is proposed for 850+ cars. A number that I feel is inadequate as discussed in part one of my submissions. If only half of those cars have to go to work in the morning, how do you imagine the flow onto that short 2 block turning lane is going to operate? Pre covid I was never able to make a right hand turn onto Lancaster during peak morning time (8:00-9:30). Since the installation of the roundabout at Bridge & Lancaster, there are seldom any breaks in traffic. My saving grace to make a right southbound turn is the backing up of traffic at the Bridgeport light and a good Samaritan letting me in because they are sitting waiting for the light anyway. At the red light, traffic always backs up well down Lancaster. How smoothly will that middle turning lane merge into the stopped single lane that is allowing south bound traffic through the light. Or worse, how are those new residence going to get across that lane to make a right turn onto Bridgeport west bound. I understand that a traffic study was completed, but numbers do not tell the story. A single turning lane in the middle of Lancaster is far from enough to allow morning traffic to flow smoothly. More then likely what will happen is residence will turn right, go down to the roundabout and then come south up the Lancaster hill. That round -about will not longer flow smoothly. The current road arrangement in this area is insufficient to handle this proposed density. Please consider a whole new imagining of the intersection that does not allow left hand turns onto Lancaster. Exits over the easements at the rear of the property onto Riverbend Ct. is the only workable solution. I believe that if Highway 7 into Wellington St. and the express way was to be completed as designed, this would relieve traffic volume at this corner, but we have no reason to believe this will happen anytime soon given the long history of this project. I would hope city council would not be tempted to use the future residence of this development as pawns, to put pressure on the province to finish the highway project. It is my opinion, that if the traffic flow cannot be redesigned to work better for this very large number of new people into this neighbourhood, it should be put on hold until the completion of the new highway 7. At that time a new traffic survey could be completed Page 285 of 387 Thank you for reading my rather long assessment of this problem. I have lived here for many years, and have many thoughts about potential problems. Sincerely, Graham Day Page 286 of 387 Dear Sir This is my 3rd submission regards to the 528 - 550 Lancaster St. W. As I have stated before; I agree we need higher density development in all of Waterloo region. The farm land is far too valuable to be wasting on residential development. In this submission I wish to challenge some of the assumption and suggestions made by the developer. 1. There is no reason to think that traffic levels are going to shrink in the future. All the public transit, bicycle lanes, and wishful thinking we all can muster will not make that happen. We have seen the price of housing sore out for reach for many people. As people give up on he idea of home ownership they will logically turn to the next largest purchase item on the list; a car. Pride of ownership, a necessity of escape from small apartments, or just something to spend their money on (because you can only decorate an apartment so many times) are all serious motivators. Autonomous cars of the future, will further compound this problem. Seniors will be on the road in the future, long past an age that they are now stopping to drive. 2. The developer suggested that charging extra for a parking spot was a means to reduce the need for car parking needs. I have to ask if anyone really thinks that paying for a parking spot would keep anyone from pwning and driving a car? It seem more like a way of padding profits to me. 3. The city will still be home to families in the future. Why would there be a proposal with only 1 and 2 bedroom units? To include true density and population diversity, all buildings should have a selection of all styles of apartments. Including 3 bedrooms. Maybe some bachelor apartments should also be included in the mix. 4. The developer will be making a lot of money on this project. Affordable housing seems to be a minimal expense over the life of the building. In 10 years the need for affordable housing will be far greater then it is now. Permanent affordable housing is part of a diverse neighbourhood. 5. There are many amenities in the area, except a groceries store, a bank and a family friendly medical clinic. (the present Lancaster clinic is only open from 6 —12 pm, and has no family doctors) The groceries story at Bridge and University that he developer listed as accessible is 20 minutes away. Have you tried to carry your groceries for 20 minutes? If we are going to have a small town on this plot of land, lets make the quality of life for these people a good as we can. Increasing the proposed retail space by a great percentage is important. 6.The developer suggested that rents might be around 30% of average income. This would be wonderful, but I am suspicious that was just an easy number with no intention of follow through. Most developer charge as much as the market will bare. Can you tie rents to income or inflation with approval to proceed with this development? Is the developer prepared to give you a percentage number that he will held to? 7. There were no playground amenities in the proposal that I saw. The little lot at the corner of General and Lancaster is across the street and could not be considered accessible. Thank you for reading and your consideration. Sincerely, Graham Day Page 287 of 387 PROPOSED BY — LAW 2023 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — 550 Lancaster Inc. — 26 Bridge Street West) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend 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. Zoning Grid Schedules Number 126 and 127 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 are hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) to Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) with Site Specific Provision (367) and Holding Provision (47H). 2. Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 126 and 127 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. 3. Section 19 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Site Specific Provision (367) thereto as follows: "(367). Notwithstanding Sections 4.12a), 4.12.1, 4.12.2, and 5.3a) of this By-law, within the lands zoned Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 126 and 127 of Appendix "A", the following site specific provisions shall apply: a) A maximum of two single detached dwellings shall be permitted on a lot. This regulation shall only apply to buildings moved from 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West. Page 288 of 387 b) Each dwelling may be permitted to contain one Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached). c) A visual barrier shall not be required between a parking lot with 5 parking spaces or less and an abutting residential lot." 4. Section 20 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Section (47H) thereto as follows: "(47). Notwithstanding Section 7 of this By-law within the lands zoned Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 126 and 127 of Appendix "A", no uses shall be permitted until such time as the following conditions have been met and this holding provision has been removed by by-law: a) An Urban Design Brief, including a Landscaping Plan and Planting Plan, related to the design and screening of retaining walls, has been submitted by the owner and approved by the Director of Planning of the City of Kitchener; and b) A Detailed Grading / Stormwater Management Plan and Servicing Plan have been submitted to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , 2023. Mayor Clerk Page 289 of 387 LVATc111a0wzl RES -6 INS -1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S_CHEDU_L_E 127 _ SCHEDULE 126 i E 4 RES -5 R(19 -2 ( -2 RES -2 SUBJECT AREA(S) RES -5 NHC-1 N Z RES -1 AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 2019-051 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT AND LANDFORMS (21 H) / AREA 1 - 100 FROM LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL TWO ZONE ZBA22/023/B/AP ~~~ (RES -2) RE • TO LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL TWO ZONE 550 LANCASTER INC. ! (RES -2) _2 �,11Aq$ •� /j WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (367) IIILL(- j AND HOLDING PROVISION (47H) ~A 1 _ !/% OFAPPENDIX'A' •� •� i �� BY-LAW 2019-051 !� ,/� z,,. tea• '• �j /� EUF-1 EXISTING USE FLOODPLAIN ZONE :r` . ; !� INS -1 NEIGHBOURHOOD INSTITUTIONAL ZONE MIX -2 MIXED USE TWO ZONE MIX -3 MIXED USE THREE ZONE REA 1 �>x�=~r NHC-1 NATURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION ZONE a _ OSR-2 OPEN SPACE: GREENWAYS ZONE -2 ~ - ~ OSR-3 OPEN SPACE: STORMWATER =� MANAGMENTZONE RES -1 LOWRISE RESIDENTIAL ONE ZONE RES -2 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL TWO ZONE R �. � RES -4 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE RES -5 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE s�� r 1 ► (1� Mix -2141 i% MIX -2 (4 �� (61),11 p% ~~ ��FLOODING �- ----- ,� SR 7T MIX -2 (4MIx-z j j� �s�� j _� SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT AND LANDFORMS MAP NO. o so 100 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA22/023/B/AP ~~~ METRES ZONE GRID REFERENCE 550 LANCASTER INC. SCALE 1:4,000 _2 �,11Aq$ — — SCHEDULE NO. 126 AND 127 26 BRIDGE ST W DATE: APRIL 11, 2023 ~A 1 _ OFAPPENDIX'A' KI I CHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 •� ZONE LIMITS -2 s�� r 1 ► (1� Mix -2141 i% MIX -2 (4 �� (61),11 p% ~~ ��FLOODING �- ----- ,� HAZARD •� �; SLOPE EROSION HAZARD "- MIX -2 MIX -2 (41) 02) MIX -2 (4MIx-z j j� �s�� j _� SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT AND LANDFORMS MAP NO. o so 100 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA22/023/B/AP OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT N/A METRES 550 LANCASTER INC. SCALE 1:4,000 City of Kitchener DEVELOPME City DEPARTMENT, PLANNING FILE ZBA22023BAP_MAP2 mxd 26 BRIDGE ST W DATE: APRIL 11, 2023 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 26 Bridge Street West a d 0� Have Your Voice Heard! Date: May 8, 2023 Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West orVirtuaI Zoom Meeting µ ; To view the staff report, agenda, meeting details, start time of this item orto appearasa delegation, visit: Concept Image (proposed dwellings left side) kitchener.ca/meetings To learn more about this project, including information on your AM©is ` appeal rights, visit: www.kitchener.ca/ © `� PlanningApplications W4Wor contact: Low Rise Placement 2 single Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner Residential of Heritage Detached 519.741.2200 x 7668 Dwellings Buildings Dwellings andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca with Additional Dwelling Units IThe City of Kitchener will consider an application to amend the Zoning By-law to facilitate the placement of 2 heritage buildings proposed to be relocated from 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West. Page 291 of 387 City of Kitchener Heritage — OPA/ZBA Comment Form Project Address: 544-550 Lancaster Street West & 26 Bridge Street West File Number: OPA21/010/L/AP, ZBA21/015/L/AP Comments Of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Deeksha Choudhry Email: deeksha.choudhry@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Date of Comments: March 14, 2023 Heritage Planning staff has reviewed the following material for the proposed development on the lands municipally addressed as 544-550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street West to provide the comments outlined below: • Addendum to the Revised HIA assessing impacts to 20 Bridge Street West dated December 2022; • Revised Urban Design Brief dated December 2022; • Proposed Elevations for the proposed development at 544-546 Lancaster Street West; Staff have also reviewed the updated site plan that was submitted after the Post -Circulation of the comments that were sent to the applicant. 1. Site Specific Comments: The properties municipally addressed as 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West are not designated or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act but have been identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory as having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Per Section 12.C.1.4 of the City's Official Plan, it is acknowledged that not all cultural heritage resources have been identified and a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. The properties are also located in close proximity to the Grand River Corridor Cultural Heritage Landscape as per the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study, prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., and approved by Council in 2015. The property municipally addressed as 26 Bridge Street West does not contain any protected or listed cultural heritage resources. However, it is located adjacent to a property municipally addressed as 20 Bridge Street West. 20 Bridge Street West is identified on the Heritage Kitchener Advisory Committee A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 292 of 387 Inventory as a property of interest that is 'Under Review'. It is a 2 -storey red brick house that was constructed c. 1890. Heritage Planning staff reached out to the property owner in 2013 to receive permission to access the property to complete a fulsome evaluation and take photographs of the exterior of the existing dwelling. Permissions to access the property were not granted and therefore a fulsome assessment of the property has not been completed. The applicant is proposing to relocate the two existing dwellings at 544- 546 Lancaster Street to 26 Bridge Street West. The proposed development includes the re -location of the two buildings currently located at 544-546 Lancaster Street West to the property municipally addressed as 26 Bridge Street West. This would allow for a comprehensive mixed use development on the lands included within 544-550 Lancaster Street West. 2. Heritage Planning Comments 2.1 Preliminary Review of the Revised Heritage Impact Assessment for 544-546 Lancaster Street West An updated draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by MHBC Planning dated September 2021. The draft HIA contains an assessment of the buildings addressed as 544-546 Lancaster Street West and concludes that the properties have cultural heritage value or interest for design/physical and historic/associative values. The updated draft HIA proposed the relocation of the buildings currently addressed as 544-546 Lancaster Street West to the property municipally located as 26 Bridge Street West. The draft HIA concludes that: • The removal of the concrete patios, walkways, and the rear additions to 546 Lancaster Street west is considered a neutral impact. • The removal of the stone foundation of both buildings is considered a minor adverse impact as it will result in the removal of an original foundation • The removal of the buildings from their existing location to an alternative location off-site is considered a minor adverse impact as the buildings do not have a significance contextual relationship with their existing location in-situ. 2.2 The draft HIA makes the following recommendations: • That a Re -location and Conservation Plan be drafted which provides details on how the buildings will be prepared for re -location, stabilized, and re -located to their new location, repaired, altered, and conserved over the long term; • An interpretive plaque be drafted and installed at the proposed new location which interprets the history of the buildings, as well as their original location; and A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 293 of 387 • That the draft HIA and its attachments be accepted as a historic and photographic record of the buildings in their existing locations in-situ. 2.3 Staff Review of the draft HIA Staff has completed a comprehensive review of the draft HIA that was submitted and provided comments in a separate document. The draft HIA is still in the draft stage and has not been approved by the Director of Planning. The draft HIA was presented to the Heritage Kitchener committee at the September 6, 2022 meeting. Comments of the Committee were included as part of the staff review document of the HIA. 2.4 Heritage Planning Comments regarding OPA/ZBA Application for 544-550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street West The houses located on the subject properties meet the criteria for designation under O. Reg 9/06, and even though relocation of cultural heritage resources can be a complicated activity, if it results in the retention of these resources, then it should be looked at as a conservation method. In this case, a structural assessment has determined that the houses are good candidates for relocation. However, staff do not yet have a Relocation Plan that would determine how these houses will be moved, and staff do not have a Conservation Plan, detailing the short-term, medium-term, and long-term conservation measures to ensure the long-term protection of these homes. Staff require that these documents be submitted at the site plan stage (for both 544-550 Lancaster Street West and 26 Bridge Street West, or whichever might come first) as part of a complete application. All previous comments that staff have provided the applicant with continue to apply. Furthermore, the new legislative requirements enacted through Bill 23 means that a site plan application will no longer be required for 26 Bridge Street West. As such, for this application to proceed, a zoning holding provision will now be required on the current OPA/ZBA application for the proposed development at 528-550 Lancaster Street West. to ensure the houses are safely and efficiently moved to the new location. Official Plan Policy 17.E.13.1.e allows the City to place holding provisions for zoning until conditions related to cultural heritage conservation are satisfied. This holding provision will include the following to be completed before it can be lifted: • That the Holding provision (H) applying on the subject property municipally addressed as 544- 550 Lancaster Street not be lifted until a Re -location and Conservation Plan for 544-546 Lancaster Street has been submitted for review by the City's Heritage Planner and approved by the Director of Planning; A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 294 of 387 Further, staff will be including certain conditions as part of the site plan process for 544-546 Lancaster Street west: - That the holding provision be lifted prior to any grading, construction or demolition activities can take place; - That a Letter of Credit be provided for the costs of relocated the existing houses at 544-546 Lancaster Street West, including any stabilization work that may be required. The securities will be released once the houses have been successfully moved. - That within 6 months of occupancy, the owner shall install a commemorative plaque at 528-550 Lancaster Street West. - That the relocated properties be listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest the day they are successfully moved. The draft HIA also recommends that a commemorative be installed at 26 Bridge Street West. Additionally, there needs to be sufficient treatment of the retaining walls that are being proposed on 26 Bridge Street West. Staff strongly encourage the application to look at different materials (perhaps a natural stone material) and screening landscaping for better compatibility with these heritage resources and to soften the views of the site. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 295 of 387 City of Kitchener COMMENT FORM Project Address: 26 Bridge Street West Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/22/023/B/AP Comments of: Environmental Planning — City of Kitchener Commenter's Name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.mussel man@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 X 7068 Date of Comments: October 28, 2022 Comments required no later than: November 3, 2022 1. Plans, Studies and Reports submitted as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • Scoped Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Aboud and Associates Inc., dated June 10, 2022. • Servicing Feasibility Study, prepared by Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd., dated June 3, 2022 • Slope Stability Assessment Report, prepared by Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd., dated February 24, 2022. • Planning Justification Report Zoning By -Law Amendment Site Plan Approval. MHBC., dated June 2022. 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the studies as noted above to support a zoning bylaw amendment and site plan to support the proposed development that includes the relocation of two heritage buildings from 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West (-650 metres southeast) to be utilized as residential units on the subject property and note: 1) Access to the subject lands is presently off Bridge Street West and outside of the floodplain. The finished floor elevation of the two structures must additionally reside above the regulated floodplain elevation of 303.6m to achieve compliance within the floodway. 2) The subject property is classified Low Rise Residential, with a small portion of Natural Heritage Conservation, Two Zone Floodplain, and Slope Erosion per Schedules 6 and 7 of The City of Kitchener Official Plan. 3) The Natural Heritage Conservation zone on the property is identified as a Locally Significant Valley, a Kitchener Core Natural Heritage Feature, and is considered a part of the Natural Heritage System within the City of Kitchener. Slope Stability 4) The Slope Stability Assessment concluded that the proposed development will be situated at the base of a slope that rises to the west and north, loading from the structures will add to the overall stability of the feature, toe erosion would not be an issue as the toe of slope is situated over 40 metres from the development and is protected by the floodplain and driveway of the eastern adjacent property. Environmental Impacts /Tree Preservation 5) The proposed residential development will not impact the natural heritage features identified within and adjacent to the subject property. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 296 of 387 6) The Locally Significant Valley and Laurel Creek identified on and adjacent to the subject property will be protected. 7) Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures outlined in Sections 4 and 7 of the EIS will provide ensure the proposed development will not damage or destroy the habitat of any listed Species at Risk or impact aquatic communities. 8) A Tree Preservation Plan was submitted as an Appendix to the EIS in support of the application. In summary, the TPP noted: a) A total of 12 trees were inventoried located along the western and northern property boundaries, with one at the north end of the eastern boundary. b) All twelve trees inventoried are recommended for preservation per the TPP. 9) Development is proposed to occur outside of the EUF-1 and Flooding Hazard overlay areas and the Slope Stability Assessment Report has confirmed that the proposed development is compliant with section 17.2.2 b) ii, iii, iv, and vi of the Kitchener 2019-051 Zoning By-law. Based on my review of the supporting studies the Zoning By Law Amendment can be supported. 3. Conditions of Approval in Principal (AIP) and/or Full Site Plan Approval: City Environmental Planning supports Approval -In -Principle (AIP) provided the following custom and/or modified conditions are incorporated into the AIP and/or Section 41 Development Agreement. 1) The proposed development is in accordance with the Scoped Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Aboud and Associates Inc., dated June 10, 2022. 2) Mitigation measures outlined in Section 4 and 7 the Scoped Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Aboud and Associates Inc., dated June 10, 2022, are implemented, and incorporated into plans and drawing where applicable. 3) The environmental consultant in combination with the developer is to ensure that adjacent natural features are not impacted throughout all stages of property development. Construction monitoring is the responsibility of the proponent. 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • 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 and the Development Manual. 5. Anticipated Fees: • N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 297 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Rojan Mohammadi Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 2:28 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Sandro Bassanese; Garett Stevenson; Deeksha Choudhry Subject: RE: Final Revised Site Layout comments: 26 Bridge St W Hi Andrew, I have doubts about how the parking would function but I am sure transportation has reviewed it thoroughly. As for my comments, I have listed some of my previous comments and a new comment on retaining wall treatment. • Please elaborate on how the proposed retianing walls will be maintained, in particular the ones located on the GRCA regulated area. • The close proximity of the proposed relocation to the side yard may impact several trees west and north side of the property. Written permission for removal of or impact to trees in joint ownership along property lines is required. • Additional treatment (form liner) on the proposed retianing walls are recommended in order to reduce the impact of concrete walls Thanks Rojan Mohammadi MA, MCIP, RPP, PMP (She/Her) Senior Urban Designer I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7326 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Roman. mohammadiakitchener.ca 000000000 Page 298 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Mike Seiling Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 1:11 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Greg Reitzel Cc: Tina Malone -Wright; Sandro Bassanese; Leslie Collins Subject: RE: 26 Bridge Street West - Site Plan Application and Zoning By-law Amendment Application Attachments: 152135_544-550Lancaster_26BridgeStreet_Addendum (December 22 2022).pdf W This is ton confirm Fire and Building have reviewed this application and offer the following comments; • Based on the site plan (attached -see page 10/17), a new onsite fire hydrant is not required, • The driveway (fire access) needs to be min 4m wide and signed no parking along driveway), • The grades on this site are presently non -flat, likely a retaining wall(s) to flatten out the site, • As noted back in October 2022, staff have serious concerns with spatial separation, both between the houses and hose to property line (note, to have some windows, the OBC requires min. 1.2m setback from property line & proposal has 6 windows each left side face). This will be a code issue. Unsure if the amount of windows between the 2 homes is an issue at this time. The Consultant should review, Staff are aware Planning may not be able to prescribe the above but if they could share the above comments with the customer so they can address. Building staff will be expecting to see the above items included with their permit applications. Should there be any questions please contact us directly. Copying Leslie as info and future permit application requirements. Mike Page 299 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Greg Reitzel Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9:07 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: 26 Bridge St W - Final Revised Site Layout - Feb 17 Hello Andrew, IT appears that they are now providing a 4m driveway width instead of just a 3m and considering the situation here, fire can accept the 4m width. Best Regards, Greg Page 300 of 387 Internal memo Development Services Department Date: October 19, 2022 To: Andrew Pinnell From: Jason BrGI6 cc: Carlos Reyes Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application 550 Lancaster Inc. c/o Corley Developments 26 Bridge Street West, Kitchener ZBA22/023/B/AP 1 � KrL�NER wwwkitchener. ca The below comments have been prepared through the review of the supplied Site Servicing Feasibility Study prepared by Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Limited dated June 03, 2022 in support of the above noted applications. General Comments: 1. Engineering can support the zone change with resubmission of the water servicing plan as detailed below. Sanitary: 2. The City of Kitchener sanitary sewer design per capita daily flow rate is 305 L/p/day and not the 275 L/p/day as noted in the report and design sheet. This can be rectified at detailed design. Water (Angela Mick, KU): 3. Please review your water servicing strategy and compare against the hydrant flow test report provided (as an attachment to these comments) and resubmit. Do not use the 450mm main on Lancaster Street. Storm and Stormwater Management: 4. The storm and stormwater management approach is supported. Jason Brule, C.E.T. Engineering Technologist Page 301 of 387 FCFP BE PROTECTED Sprinkler • Fire Alarm • Security Date of Test: May 12th 2020 Time Site Address: 54 Bridge Street West, Kitchener Static Hydrant: 40 Bridge Street West Flowing Hydrant: 54 Bridge Street West Main Size: Unknown Static Pressure PSI: FLOW TEST RESULTS 9:00 A.M. 92 PSI Number of Openings Size of Openings Pitot PSI Flow GPM Residual PSI 1 2.5" 18 710 85 2 2.5" 5+5 760 83 3 4 FLOW TEST RESULTS 94 STATIC 92PS1 _ 92 H 90 W 88 Lu 86 CL 84 82 0 100 200 FLOW GPM Witnessed By: Leahm Martens, and Kitchener Utilites 710GPM @ 85PSI 760GPM @ 83 PS I Page 302 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Dave Seller Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 2:08 PM To: 'Pierre Chauvin'; Andrew Pinnell Cc: Nicolette Van Oyen; Mark Hoculik; Stephen Litt Subject: RE: Comments: Final Revised Site Layout comments: 26 Bridge St W Thanks for the clarification Pierre. Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.sellerCakitchener.ca From: Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcplan.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 4:49 PM To: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca> Cc: Nicolette Van Oyen <nvanoyen@mhbcplan.com>; Mark Hoculik <mh@vivedevelopment.ca>; Stephen Litt <sl@vivedevelopment.ca> Subject: RE: Comments: Final Revised Site Layout comments: 26 Bridge St W Hi Dave, Regarding the red area there is no encroachment in the DVT. The retaining wall that is proposed along the driveway is generally at grade on the driveway side and the retaining wall is well below the 0.9m high threshold (refer to the grading plan we submitted). The driveway is higher than the floodplain. The height of the walls noted on the site plan refer to the height from the top of wall (at the driveway) to the bottom of the wall (in the floodplain). I hope this helps clarify matters for you support. Please call if you still need to discuss. PIERRE CHAUVIN, MA, MCIP, RPP I Partner M H BC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 1 Kitchener I ON I N213 3X9 I T 519 576 3650 X 701 1 C 519 580 4912 1 F 519 576 0121 1 pchauvin@mhbcplan.com Follow us: Webpaqe I Linkedin I Facebook I Twitter I Vimeo I Instagram C€if, % � to. YEARS MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE This communication is intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, protected or otherwise exempt from disclosure. No waiver of confidence, privilege, protection or otherwise is made. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please advise us immediately and delete this email without reading, copying or forwarding it to anyone. From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: April -12-23 3:29 PM To: Pierre Chauvin <pchauvin@mhbcplan.com> Cc: Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; Nicolette Van Oyen <nvanoyen@mhbcplan.com>; Mark Hoculik Page 303 of 387 <mh@vivedevelopment.ca>; Stephen Litt <sl@vivedevelopment.ca> Subject: FW: Comments: Final Revised Site Layout comments: 26 Bridge St W Hi Pierre, The below/attached comments from Transportation will also need to be addressed. Please advise how this will be accomplished. Thanks, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca 0 MAIL 40DOV 000 se the Projects laces you love. :.-_ . ► rniinations are apen for Kitchener's Great Ptaces awards. From: Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 3:12 PM To: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Subject: Comments: Final Revised Site Layout comments: 26 Bridge St W Hi Andrew, Based on the attached plan, Transportation Services will require justification for each of the encroachments into the DVT that re over the 0.9m threshold. As 1.0m encroachment into the DVT (green highlighted area) could be supported. However, the encroachment of 1.92m into the DVT (red highlighted area) does not seem minor in nature and a must have a well thought out justification submission, which will be considered. This encroachment is creating a visibility issue, were there wasn't one before. Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller@kitchener.ca Page 304 of 387 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 26 Bridge St W Owner: 550 Lancaster Inc. c/o Corley Developments Application: Zoning By-law Amendment #ZBA22/023/B/AP Comments Of: Parks and Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Nov 03 2022 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) 0 No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: I have reviewed the documentation noted below submitted in support of a ZBA to add site-specific provisions to allow 2 dwellings on the one lot; to allow for a reduced side yard setback of 0.7 metres instead of the minimum required 1.2 metres; and to allow for a reduced rear yard setback of 7.0 metres instead of the minimum required 7.5 metres. This would allow two dwellings with heritage status to be relocated from their existing location at 544 and 546 Lancaster St. W. to the subject property and be used as a single detached dwelling and a duplex dwelling. • Proposed preliminary site layout — MHBC drawing dated June 2022 • MHBC cover letter 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: Park Dedication will be deferred at the ZBA and assessed at the site plan application and coordinated with the future site plan application at 550 Lancaster St W to account for the credit for existing units on that site. 3. Comments on Submitted Documents No comments, no requirement. 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy As per Section 8.C.2 — Urban Forests of the Official Plan ... o policy 8.C.2.16., the City requires the preparation and submission of a tree management plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available on the City's Website), as a condition of a development application. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community 16auu- g of 387 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form 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/treemanaeement for detailed submission requirements • City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Policy • City of Kitchener Development Manual • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law • Places & Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener • Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan • Urban Design Manual 5. 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 ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval to be coordinated with the proposed development at 550 Lancaster St W. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community 03969 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Melissa Mohr <MMohr@regionofwaterloo.ca> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 1:02 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Joginder Bhatia Cc: Josh Graham; Garett Stevenson; Tina Malone -Wright; Sandro Bassanese Subject: RE: Regional Comments - 2nd submission of ZBA2022-0023 (26 Bridge Street, Kitchener) Attachments: RE: Regional Comments - 2nd submission of ZBA2022-0023 (26 Bridge Street, Kitchener) Good Morning Andrew, Yes, as per my email last week (and attached above), we can accept a holding provision to address Regional concerns. The wording for the holding provision is: 1. That a holding provision be implemented on the entirety of the subject lands until a satisfactory Detailed Grading/ Stormwater Management Plan and Servicing Plan has been received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The meeting is being proposed to address the above issues in a timely manner. Kind Regards, Melissa Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Confidentiality Notice: This email correspondence (including any attachments) may contain information which is confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) listed above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or have otherwise received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by replying via e-mail, and destroy all copies of this original correspondence (including any attachments). Thank you for your cooperation. Page 307 of 387 N* Region of Waterloo Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Pinnell, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionotwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 1-226-752-8622 File: C14/2/22023 March 13, 2023 Re: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 22/23 26 Bridge Street — 2nd submission MHBC Planning (C/O Pierre Chauvin) on behalf of 550 Lancaster Inc. (C/O Corley Developments) CITY OF KITCHENER MHBC Planning has resubmitted a Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 26 Bridge Street West (subject lands) in the City of Kitchener. The applicant continues to propose to relocate two dwellings (1 single detached dwelling and 1 duplex dwelling) from 544-550 Lancaster Street West to the subject lands. The subject lands are designated Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan and designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. In addition, the subject lands are zoned Residential Three (R3) Zone and Existing Use Floodplain (EUF-1) Zone in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law Amendment. The applicant requires a Zoning By-law Amendment to add a site-specific provision to the existing residential zone to permit two (2) dwellings on one lot; to allow for a reduced side yard setback of 0.7m (whereas 1.2m is required); and to allow for a reduced rear yard setback of 7.0 m (whereas 7.5m is required). This Zoning By-law Amendment is being requested to facilitate the relocation of two dwellings with heritage status to be relocated from their existing location at 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West to the subject lands and for the subject lands to permit the use of the site for a detached dwelling and a duplex dwelling. Document Number: 4333822 Version: 1 Page 308 of 387 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 is designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Within the Urban Area, the Region directs the majority of growth to the Urban Growth Centers, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors, Major Local Nodes and Urban Designated Greenfield Areas. These areas are planned to have a more compact form with a mix of employment, housing and services in close proximity of each other and higher frequency transit. Regional staff understand that the development proposal is located on an existing Regional Road that is a planned transit corridor. The Region is supportive of increased residential density on planned transit corridors as they support the Planned Community Structure established within the ROP. In addition the above, Regional staff acknowledge that the subject lands are regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and a portion of the property is within the floodplain and valley slope associated with Laurel Creek. Regional staff acknowledge that the proposed access, driveway, buildings and parking area are located outside of the floodplain and therefore Regional staff concur with the GRCA. The Region wishes to advise the applicant of the following technical comments related to the proposal: Corridor Planning Environmental Noise.- Regional oise:Regional staff have reviewed the detailed noise study entitled "Noise Feasibility Study Proposed Residential Development 26 Bridge Street West, Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo" dated June 17, 2022, prepared by HGC Engineering Ltd. The report is acceptable and Regional staff have the following comments for your review and implementation: The report concluded that noise levels will exceed the noise level limits and various noise attenuation measures in the form of the provision of central air conditioning and noise -warning clauses will be required for the proposed dwellings. The report concluded that the noise levels in the common amenity area are below 60 dBA; therefore, a Type B Noise Warning Clause will be required for all the dwelling units within the proposed development as a noise attenuation measure. Document Number: 4333822 Version: 1 Page 309 of 387 The following recommendation of the noise study pertaining to transportation noise are required and shall be implemented through a Registered Development Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo through a future Consent Application: The developer agrees to implement the recommendations contained in the report entitled "Noise Feasibility Study Proposed Residential Development 26 Bridge Street West Kitchener Regional Municipality of Waterloo" dated June 17, 2022, prepared by HGC Engineering; and further agrees that: a. For All Dwelling Units in both buildings: i. The dwelling/building shall be installed with a forced air -ducted heating and ventilation system suitable sized and designed for the provision of installation of central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion; ii. The location and installation of the outdoor air conditioning devices should be done to minimize the noise impacts and comply with the MECP NPC -300 Noise Guideline; iii. The following Noise Warning Clauses shall be required to be included in all offers of Purchase and Sale/Lease/Rental Agreements: "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 traffic may on occasion interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." "This dwelling unit has been fitted with a forced air heating system and the ducting etc. has been sized to accommodate central air conditioning. Installation of central air conditioning will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks' noise criteria." "Warning: Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of nearby commercial facilities, sound from these facilities may at times be audible and their operations may change in the future." b. That prior to the issuance of any building permit(s), an acoustical Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, certify that the noise attenuation measures are incorporated in the building plans and upon completion of construction, an acoustical Engineer also certify that the dwelling units have been constructed in accordance with the accepted noise study, and the development meets the MECP NPC -300 noise guideline noise level criteria. Document Number: 4333822 Version: 1 Page 310 of 387 Stationary Noise.- The oise:The stationary noise aspects of the Noise Study entitled "Noise Feasibility Study Proposed Residential Development 26 Bridge Street West, Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo" dated June 17, 2022, prepared by HGC Engineering Ltd. has been received and Regional staff have the following comments: The stationary noise study examined noise from stationary noise sources in the area including Gord Kaster Automotive, an automobile repair shop located approximately 100m south of the site. Based on investigations made by HGC Engineering and the elevated levels of traffic noise in the area, the study determined that noise from the shop is not excessive. The following recommendation from the noise study shall be implemented through a future development agreement between the Owner/Developer and the City of Kitchener at a future Consent stage: 1. The developer agrees to implement the recommendations contained in the noise report entitled "Noise Feasibility Study Proposed Residential Development 26 Bridge Street West Kitchener Regional Municipality of Waterloo" dated June July 17, 2022, prepared by HGC, and further agrees that the following noise warning clause shall be included in all offers of purchase and sale/lease/rental agreements for each building: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of nearby commercial facilities, sound from those facilities may at time be audible." The above noted noise warning clause shall be included in all Purchase and Sale/ Lease/Rental Agreements. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management (SWM) Report: The Site Servicing Feasibility Report dated June 3, 2022, prepared by SBM has been reviewed and staff have the following comments at this stage: The Report has determined that on-site stormwater management quantity controls are not required based on the total impacted area of less than 0.1 ha, which is in compliance with the City of Kitchener stormwater management requirements. The report further indicates that stormwater runoff from the subject lands will outlet to the existing 675mm diameter storm sewer in the Bridge Street right-of-way. Please note that the following items require clarification and have yet to be addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo: Please clarify whether a storm sewer connection is required or if stormwater will be surface flowing to the Bridge Street right-of-way. The flow details and direction with more spot grades along the lands abutting the road right-of-way should be shown on the Site Grading Plan (Drawing No. C3 appended in the Report). Document Number: 4333822 Version: 1 Page 311 of 387 Site Grading, Access and Flood Plain.- The lain:The proposed profile grades are acceptable from a Regional perspective, however, the access throat width at the future property line including the curb radii should be shown on the grading plan. The minimum throat width for a non-commercial (residential) access must be 3.7m and can be up to 6.Om with a minimum of 1.5m curb radii. Please note that there may be a conflicting hydro pole and guy -wire at the proposed access location; therefore, the preliminary grading plan must be updated based on the above comments prior to the Region being satisfied with the site grading and access at the Zoning By-law Amendment stage. In addition, in a letter dated October 12, 2022, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has indicated they have no objection in principle to the development proposal and the driveway has been proposed outside of the floodplain, providing a dry access to Bridge Street West with a slope of less than 15%. Please note that if the proposed access location is updated based on the Regions Comments above, Regional staff shall require confirmation of the GRCA's acceptance of the new location and width. Building Permit Stage Access Permit.- As ermit:As the total number of units are less than six (6) units, a residential access permit with the applicable fee of $100.00 shall be required for the proposed access to Bridge Street West (Regional Road # 52). The access must meet Regional standards as indicated above and any redundant accesses shall be closed through an access permit. There is no fee for the closure of the access. The application for the access permit can be found here: https://forms.regionofwaterloo.ca/ePay/PDLS-Online-Payment-Forms/Application- and-Payment-for-an-Access-Permit Site Servicing/Work Permit/Municipal Consent: The Site servicing Feasibility Report dated June 3, 2022, prepared by SBM is under review and additional information is required. As indicated above, the Region must be satisfied with the report at the Zoning By-law Amendment stage. Please be advised that Municipal Consent shall be required for the installation of any proposed/required servicing connections once the report has been accepted. In addition, a Region of Waterloo Work Permit must be obtained from the Region of Waterloo prior to commencing construction within the Region's Right -of -Way. For further information, please visit the following website: https://rmow.permitcentral.ca/ 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 Document Number: 4333822 Version: 1 Page 312 of 387 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 30 per cent of the gross annual which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $385,500 annual household income for low and moderate income households income renter households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average $576,347 purchase price of a resale unit in the average market rent (AMR) in the regional market area $1,134 *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2021). In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house price is $385,500. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit, based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan, the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual $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. Document Number: 4333822 Version: 1 Page 313 of 387 Fees By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment and Compatibility Review fees of $4,000.00 (deposited November 3, 2022). Follow up and next steps As per comments provided on the initial submission and comments provided above, the Region must be satisfied with the Stormwater Management Report and preliminary grading plan prior to being in a position to support the above application. 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 C. 550 Lancaster Inc. (C/O Corley Developments) (Owner) MHBC Planning (C/O Pierre Chauvin and Nicolette van Oyen) (Applicant) Document Number: 4333822 Version: 1 Page 314 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: John Vos <John.Vos@waterloo.ca> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 4:10 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: ZBA for 26 Bridge St, Kitchener Hi Andrew, I have reviewed the zoning application for 26 Bridge Street West (ZBA22/023/B/AP) and will defer to the City of Kitchener Planning Division to comment on the merits of the application. If approved, the property owner should contact the City of Waterloo Transportation Services (roads@waterloo.ca) to coordinate the timing of the road closure (when the structures are moved) to ensure it doesn't impact other roadworks in the surrounding area. Thanks, John John Vos, MCIP, RPP Planner, Planning Services City of Waterloo P: 519-747-8527 TTY: 1-866-786-3941 Pronouns: he, him IMPORTANT: City Hall is open, with a small complement of staff to assist you. For planning matters, appointments are strongly encouraged, and can be scheduled directly with the staff person or by emailing devservices@waterloo.ca or calling (519)747-8752. Staff continue to work remotely, and are available virtually to assist you — please do not hesitate to reach out. From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: October 7, 2022 4:51 PM To: Natalie Hardacre <Natalie.Hardacre@waterloo.ca> Cc: John Vos <John.Vos@waterloo.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ZBA for 26 Bridge St, Kitchener Thanks, Natalie. I hope you have a great Thanksgiving. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca You IIS a —} From: Natalie Hardacre <Natalie.Hardacre@waterloo.ca> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 4:30 PM 1 Page 315 of 387 October 12, 2022 Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.J. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax:519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca Andrew Pinnell Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 and rew.pin nell(a)kitchener.ca Re: Zoning Bylaw Amendment ZBA22/023/B/AP 26 Bridge Street West, Bridgeport 550 Lancaster Inc. c/o Corley Developments Dear Mr. Pinnell, Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff have reviewed the above -noted application to relocate two heritage dwellings from 544 and 546 Lancaster Street West. Recommendation The GRCA has no concerns with the application in principle. The floodplain boundary should be confirmed on all plans, and additional grading details will be required during site plan and GRCA permit stages. Documents Reviewed by Staff Staff have reviewed the following documents submitted with this application: • Planning Justification Report (MHBC, June 2022) • Slope Stability Assessment Report (CVD, February 24, 2022) • Topographic survey (Van Harten, revised July 26, 2021) This follows our pre -consultation comments dated February 14, 2022. Page 1 of 3 Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Page 316 of 387 GRCA Comments The GRCA has reviewed this application as per our Provincial delegated responsibility to review natural hazards identified in Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2020), as a public body under the Planning Act, and in accordance with Ontario Regulation 150/06, GRCA's Board approved policies, and our MOU with the Region of Waterloo. Information currently available at our office indicates that the subject lands contain a floodplain and valley slope associated with Laurel Creek. The driveway is demonstrated to be outside of the floodplain, providing dry access to Bridge Street West. The geotechnical report shows most of the site is less than a 15% slope. The GRCA requests a grading and drainage plan as part of a site plan application to confirm all development is outside of the flooding and erosion hazards. The boundaries of the surveyed floodplain (per the topographical survey) should be used on all plans, as well as for the zone change boundary for this application. Advisory Comments The environmental impact study (Aboud and Associates, June 2022) incorrectly references GRCA policies for the flood fringe. This portion of the floodplain is designated as the floodway. However, all development and access is proposed outside of the floodplain, so no floodplain policies are triggered. This is considered a major zoning application. Consistent with GRCA's 2022 approved fee schedule, we will invoice the applicant $2,405 for our review. A separate fee will be required for a GRCA permit. We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 519-621-2763 ext. 2292 or theywood(a)grandriver. ca. Sincerely, Trevor Heywood Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority Page 2 of 3 Page 317 of 387 Encl. Resource Mapping cc: Mark Hoculik, Vive Development Stephen Litt, Vive Development Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Page 3 of 3 Page 318 of 387 Grand River - _ �,• Conservation Authority r Date: Jan 28, 2022 i Author: AG i 26 Bridge Street West, j Kitchener ON i7� s Legend C" � wlr� , Regulation Limit (GRCA) Regulated Watercourse (GRCA) M Regulated Waterbody (GRCA) y Q Wetland (GRCA) r^- \ Floodplain (GRCA) ®Engineered r ® Estimated ®Approximate __ k ®Special Policy Area y Slope Valley (GRCA) ' Steep Oversteep Steep s, Slope Erosion (GRCA) ' 1 Oversteep Toe +� Q Lake Erie Flood (GRCA) Q Lake Erie Shoreline Reach (GRCA) _~ Lake Erie Dynamic Beach (GRCA) b. Q Lake Erie Erosion (GRCA) =Parcel -Assessment (MPAC/MNRF) This legend is static and may not fully reflect the layers shown on the map. The text of Ontario r� 1� �Y \ Regulation 150/06 supercedes the mapping as by these layers. represented P 4 ' Copyright Grand River Conservation Authority, 2022. Disclaimer. This map is for illustrative purposes only. Information contained herein is not a substitute for professional review or a site survey and is subject to change without notice. The Grand River _ ..' Conservation Authority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, e accuracy of the information contained on this map. Any in interpretations or conclusions drawn from this map are the sole responsibility ofthe user The source for each data layer is shown in parentheses in the map legend. Fora complete listing ofsources and citations go to: hftps://m aps.granddvenca Sou mesand-Citations.pdf o s tr 20 M N GR CA T� 7A NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N age Ie� 3 / Map Centre (UTM NAD83 z17): 541,750.39 4,814,574.33 This map Is not to be used for navigation 2020 Ortho (ON) Andrew Pinnell From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 5:34 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Zoning By-law Amendment (26 Bridge Street West) Good Afternoon Andrew, 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). If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 11:53 AM To:'natalie.hardacre@waterloo.ca' <natalie. hardacre@waterloo.ca>; _DL _#_ DSD _Planning <DSD- PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Carlos Reyes <Carlos.Reyes@kitchener.ca>; Darren Kropf <Darren.Kropf@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller <Dave.SelIer@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Ellen Straus <EIIen.Straus@kitchener.ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greig.cam eron@enovapower. com>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - Zoning By-law Amendment (26 Bridge Street West) Caution - External Email - This Message comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on unrecognized links or provide your username and/or password. Page 320 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:50 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; MMohr; Greig Cameron Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Zoning By-law Amendment (26 Bridge Street West) Andrew, I have reviewed and no comment from Enova Power. Thanks. Shaun Wang P.Eng. I Manager of System Planning and Customer Connections Direct Number: 519-745-4774 ext.6312 shaun.wang@enovapower.com enovapower.com Page 321 of 387 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: May 8, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD INVOLVED: DATE OF REPORT: April 19, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-198 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/01 1 /N/AP Draft Plan of Condominium Application 30CDM-22208 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue and portion of the undeveloped Tagge Street right-of-way 2415274 Ontario Inc. RECOMMENDATION: • That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/011/N/AP for 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue be approved in the form shown in the Proposed By-law and Map No. 1, attached to Report DSD -2023-193 as Attachment A; and • That the City of Kitchener, pursuant to Section 51(31) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and By-law 2005-170 as amended by By-law 2007-042, hereby grants draft approval to Condominium Application 30CDM-22208 for 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue and a portion of the undeveloped Tagge Street right-of-way, in the City of Kitchener, subject to the conditions shown in Attachment B. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide planning recommendations regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) applications requested by 2415274 Ontario Inc. for the subject lands. It is Planning staffs recommendation that the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved, and the Draft Plan of Condominium be draft approved. Community engagement included: o Circulation of a preliminary notice postcard to owners and occupants within 240m of the subject lands; o Installation of notice signs on the lands; o Virtual neighbourhood meeting held on September 20, 2022; o Postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners and occupants within 240 metres of the subject lands, those who responded to the preliminary circulation, and those who attended the neighbourhood meeting; and, o Notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on April 14, 2023. This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 323 of 387 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the lands, known as 2415274 Ontario Inc., has made application for Draft Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) for the subject lands, which consist of the lands addressed as 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue and a portion of the undeveloped Tagge Street right-of-way that the applicant is requesting to purchase from the City via a separate process. The condominium comprises 23 vacant land condominium units, each of which is planned to contain a future single detached dwelling with an attached garage. Units (lots) range between 224 square metres and 374 square metres in area, while lot widths range between 9.0 metres and 13.3 metres. Each unit is wide enough to accommodate a single detached dwelling with an attached garage. Proposed common elements of the condominium include a private driveway, landscaped areas, and a narrow parcel of land to be used for a noise wall. The owner is also requesting a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the proposal. A holding provision is recommended to prohibit development until a stationary noise study is completed to the satisfaction of the Region. Planning staff recommends approval of the applications. BACKGROUND: The owner of the lands, known as 2415274 Ontario Inc., has made application for Draft Plan of Condominium and Zoning By-law Amendment for the subject lands, which consist of the lands addressed as 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue and a portion of the undeveloped Tagge Street right-of-way that the applicant is requesting to purchase from the City (the disposition of these lands is not the subject of this report). These applications would facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with 23 vacant land condominium units for single detached dwellings (details found in the Report section). vvaozwrc 00 1- � G SUBJECT AREAYNO �.4 (z p 75T �RlGG� E -o N� G3m Figure 1 — Subject Lands comprised of 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue and a portion of the undeveloped Tagge Street right-of-way Page 324 of 387 The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential on Map 3 — Land Use within the 2014 Official Plan and are identified as Community Areas on Map 2 — Urban Structure. The lands are presently zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) under By-law 85-1. Applicable highlights of the current zoning permissions are as follows: • Permitted uses include Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached), Duplex Dwelling, Home Business, Private Home Daycare, Residential Care Facility, and Single Detached Dwelling. • Single detached dwellings are subject to the following regulations: o Minimum lot area of 411 square metres; o Minimum lot width of 13.7 metres; o Minimum corner lot width of 15.0 metres; o Minimum front yard and minimum side yard abutting a street of 4.5 metres, except no part of any building used to accommodate off-street parking shall be located closer than 6.0 metres to the street line. The subject lands are located northeast of the intersection Nelson Avenue and Tagge Street, in the Bridgeport East Planning Community. The lands have approximately 62 metres of frontage on Nelson Avenue and are 0.8 hectares (2 acres) in area. The lands also have approximately 20 metres of frontage at the terminus of Sylvia Street. The lands presently contain a single detached dwelling on 67 Nelson Avenue and a single detached dwelling on 71 Nelson Avenue. The surrounding residential neighbourhood to the north and west is composed of low rise residential land uses, mainly single detached dwellings. Lots within this neighbourhood vary greatly in size and shape. Also, dwellings in this area vary greatly in built form and date of construction. Sylvia Park abuts the subject lands to the east. Although the travelled portion of Tagge Street terminates at the intersection with Nelson Avenue (directly in front of the subject lands), the undeveloped Tagge Street right-of-way abuts the subject lands to the south, extending eastward approximately 450 metres to the Croatian Roman Catholic Church. The lands south of Tagge Street comprise Bridgeport Industrial Park East, which is accessed via Hollinger Crescent (off Bridge Street). Currently, pedestrian access to Sylvia Park is achieved by walking south along Sylvia Street. Alternatively, pedestrians may walk along the undeveloped Tagge Street right-of-way (not a formal City trail) to access the park. A Site Plan Application was circulated to City departments and agencies in June 2022 (Application SP22/103/N/AP). At the July 20, 2022 Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC), Site Plan Approval in Principle was not granted, pending the outcome of the aforementioned, necessary land disposition decisions and necessity of a Zoning By-law Amendment. Since that time, the Site Plan has been revised to address the SPRC comments and remains under review, pending decision on the sale of the portion of Tagge Street (see Figure 2). A conceptual site plan rendering is included as Figure 3 and the most updated version of the site plan (under review) is included as Figure 4. The plans show 23 single detached dwellings served by a private driveway, as well as common areas for snow storage, utilities, landscaping, etc. A future City trail is also shown south of the subject lands which would facilitate access to Sylvia Park (would be developed through a separate process). Page 325 of 387 Figure 2 — Plan showing the proposed sale of a portion of the undeveloped portion of Tagge Street, proposed easement for noise wall, and proposed trail connection L I. . � 104 UNITS I I I I I I � VNITB � l NIT J O I I UNIT' 1 UNIT 13 � UNIT 12 Figure 3 — Conceptual Site Plan Rendering F; e Page 326 of 387 w I —y UNn v UNIR 1 11 P Rrumrr _ _ UNI16 UNIT U076 UN115 UNIIb UNIi3 tri Q �NItD I a U 12` —� VNI�13 VN�'4 LIN VN16 IIN�f n13 UNIT 18 llNli l9 UNIT 20 UNIT 21 UNIL22 UNITS ]3 I zu:x1 via viiM�l xry �`55sa Dn 12 TAGGEST-—r--—�__L_-1_L s -,. -.. Landscaped U0. Prapasetl Noise. WdI nreo )11 45m I SITE PLAN R-5 10 20 2415274 ONTARIO INC. SCALE 750 67-71 NELSON AVE DATE JANUARY 2,2023 REPORT: SITE STATISTICS 2-g- RESd{Pmpre -73A 22CINIAP) LWArra- O811m Density -29 Wphn Sirgle Dst ftd UW&(UW11) BI 165.1m'(44.1%) LarWsraped Ansa 19O.Im°(50.8%) Aaphall 1 N W Sutlaoe Area- 18.8m' ISA%) Padag ft mored 2711.0 sV em'unn} P.k.g Pm ded 23 (IX spscef ndl .Intl "9srmeugm spews P-0-9 BPa M DimelrsWas-2,5m R5.5m INemal G -S DI enswns-37m a 5,5m LEGEND MAX BUILDING ENVELOPE (DOES NOT REFLECT PROPOSED BUILDINGS) NOTE: -ALL ASPHALT AREAS TO RE DEFINED WITH 0.15M HIGH POURED CONCRETE CURBING -IVEWAY LOCATIONS ARE CDNCEPTUAL GARBAGE PICK-UP WILL BE CURBSIDE REVISED SITE PLAN APPLICATION No. SP22l143/N1AP LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PT LT 9 ON PLAN 575 AND PART 2 S 3 ON PLAN 5884637 City of Kitchener CAD FILE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT SP,DWG Figure 4 — Site Plan drawing (under review) The owner is requesting Draft Approval of Vacant Land Condominium (VLC) to facilitate a redevelopment concept consisting of single detached dwellings fronting on a private driveway that extends between the current terminus of Sylvia Street and Nelson Avenue (see Figure 5). Specifically, the VLC comprises 23 vacant land condominium units (total of 0.608 hectares), each of which is planned to contain a future single detached dwelling. Units (lots) range between 224 square metres and 374 square metres in area, while lot widths range between 9.0 metres and 13.3 metres. Each unit is wide enough to accommodate a single detached dwelling with an attached garage. Proposed common elements of the condominium comprise 0.213 hectares and include: A private driveway, including space for: o "On -street" parking on the north side, o A 1.5 metre wide sidewalk along the north side, and o A pedestrian crossing. Landscaped areas, including space for: o Snow storage abutting Sylvia Park, o A Canada Post centralized mailbox adjacent to the connection to Sylvia Street, and 0 1.5 metre wide servicing easements, for utilities and plantings, located between Nelson Avenue and abutting units, and along the south side of the private driveway. A 1.1 -metre -wide by 130 -metre -long parcel of land abutting the industrial lands to the south. This common element of the condominium is not contiguous with the land to be developed for residential purposes and would be used for the construction of a noise wall. The parcel Page 327 of 387 would continue to be owned by the City and would be made subject to an easement in favour of the owner / future condominium corporation. The future noise wall would mitigate noise generated by the adjacent industrial lands. The long-term maintenance and all cost associated with the noise wall would be the responsibility of the condominium corporation. The land parcel located between the subject lands and the aforementioned noise wall parcel is not subject to the proposed draft plan of condominium, contains a City -owned sanitary sewer, and is proposed to be retained by the City for future trail purposes. Figure 5 — Draft Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) A recommended Draft Plan of Condominium condition would require that Site Plan Application SP22/103/N/AP receive final Site Plan Approval, prior to condominium registration. Also, prior to the registration, the land transactions related to the sale of an undeveloped portion of the Tagge Street right-of-way and the establishment of an easement on City lands for a noise wall shall be complete. The disposition of these lands will occur through a separate process. It must be noted that City Council has the ultimate authority regarding whether to sell the lands and the sale price. The Draft Plan, as outlined in this report, cannot proceed if Council denies sale of the lands. Planning staff recommends that the draft approval be granted to the Draft Plan of Condominium Application. In addition, the applicant is also requesting a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to facilitate the Draft Plan of Condominium. The ZBA is discussed in the below Planning Analysis. Page 328 of 387 UJ V) b N6F 11 20E 178.735- UNIT 9 UNIT 1 10037h©r0.0vi—I f0.037her0.031x1 j ,6 W Z UNIT 8 UNIT 7 UNIT 6 UNIT 5 NIT 4 UNIT 3 L1J 10.023hor 10073ho/ IOA? W (0A73— :'3h.7 � . i .'I 0057MI 0057ao) 0.057M1 0057ac� .%ocl xl Q UNIT l0 UNIT 2 a� i Z 10.036ho70O&Vxl 10036WO.009-1 O W----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Z -C M MON Ki' RW (4.19B111t/0.�4ae) UNIT I I (0.035h07o,086oc) z UNIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 15 UNIT 16 UNIT 17 UNIT 18 UNIT 14 UNIT 20 UNIT 21 NIT 22 jNIT 23 10 023h.1 ia4z3nor roatalw (4.073ho7 I0,023har ro.023har ro.ozznar foaZMcv roan7, :27hcv 10.027nei OD57MI 0.057oc) O.as7aCl OAs7x) 0.057x1 0.09.cl O.OS4=J 0:054oc) 0.054. .;54ocJ 0067x1 UNIT 12 N65°05'0 P100058d NOK@WQI&fen : 178737M COMMON ELEMENT (0,015hal0.037ac) Figure 5 — Draft Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) A recommended Draft Plan of Condominium condition would require that Site Plan Application SP22/103/N/AP receive final Site Plan Approval, prior to condominium registration. Also, prior to the registration, the land transactions related to the sale of an undeveloped portion of the Tagge Street right-of-way and the establishment of an easement on City lands for a noise wall shall be complete. The disposition of these lands will occur through a separate process. It must be noted that City Council has the ultimate authority regarding whether to sell the lands and the sale price. The Draft Plan, as outlined in this report, cannot proceed if Council denies sale of the lands. Planning staff recommends that the draft approval be granted to the Draft Plan of Condominium Application. In addition, the applicant is also requesting a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to facilitate the Draft Plan of Condominium. The ZBA is discussed in the below Planning Analysis. Page 328 of 387 Plannina Analvsis: Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land. The PPS promotes building healthy, liveable and safe communities, the efficient development of lands and provision of a range of housing types and densities. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested applications are consistent with the policies and intent of the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The subject lands are within the `Built -Up Area" as defined by the 2020 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Growth Plan promotes development that contributes to complete communities, creates street configurations that support walking, cycling and sustained viability of transit services. The proposal conforms with the policies of 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 proposal conforms to the policies of this plan. Through the review of the application, the Region of Waterloo has no objections to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment or Draft Plan of Condominium, subject to application of the aforementioned holding provision and certain conditions of Draft Approval (see Attachment B). City of Kitchener Official Plan: Urban Structure The subject lands are located within the Community Areas in the City's Urban Structure (Map 2 of the Official Plan). The planned function of Community Areas is to provide for residential uses as well as non-residential supporting uses intended to serve the immediate residential areas. Per Policy 3.C.2.52 limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in accordance with the applicable land use designation on Map 3 and the Urban Design Policies in Section 11. The proposed development must be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed development is sensitive to and compatible with the character, form, and planned function of the surrounding context. The proposal would facilitate single detached dwellings which are the predominant land use in the area, while allowing for compatible intensification. The proposed condominium units are smaller than most other lots within the area created through previous subdivision approvals. However, the location of the subject lands on the periphery of the residential neighbourhood creates an appropriate transition from the existing neighbourhood to the adjacent industrial area. Also, the built form of the dwellings is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, noting that there is great variety in the building form and construction dates of existing dwellings in the neighbourhood. Land Use Designation The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential land use designation permits a full range of low density housing types which may include single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, street townhouse dwellings, and low-rise multiple dwellings. The Low Rise Residential land use designation considers a Floor Space Ratio up to 0.75 and allows a maximum building height of 3 storeys or 11 metres. The condominium units and proposed development conforms to the Low Rise Residential policies. Floor Space Ratio is not a consideration for single detached dwellings. However, it should be noted that the dwellings outlines shown on the Draft Plan of Condominium comply with the requested RES - 4 Zone with respect to lot coverage. Building heights are expected to be 3 storeys or less. Page 329 of 387 It should be noted that an Official Plan Amendment is not required to facilitate the proposal. Policy Conclusion: Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan and City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represent good planning. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: Similar to other areas in the City subject to Secondary Plans in the Official Plan, and for lands within Major Transit Station Areas, the Bridgeport East area was not comprehensively rezoned via Stage 2B of the City's Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy). Accordingly, Bridgeport East remains under Zoning By-law 85-1 and will be comprehensively rezoned through a future planning exercise. In the meantime, to facilitate the VLC, the applicant has requested a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to change the zoning of the subject lands from Residential Three Zone (R-3) under By-law 85-1 to Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4) with Site Specific Provision (365) and Holding Provision (45H) under By-law 2019-051. This approach tailors the zoning to the proposed development concept. A comparison of the current, proposed base zoning, and requested Site Specific Provision is included below: Page 330 of 387 Current R-3 Zone Base RES -4 Zone Site Specific Provision (By-law 85-1) (By-law 2019-051) (365) Minimum Lot Area 411 square 235 square metres 224 square metres metres Minimum Lot Width 13.7 metres 9.0 metres Same as RES -4 Minimum Corner Lot 15.0 metres 12.8 metres 12.5 metres Width Minimum Front Yard 4.5 metres Average of the 4.5 metres for any dwelling front yards of the not directly abutting Nelson abutting lots minus Ave, provided that no part of one metre any building used to accommodate off street parking shall be located closer than 6.0 metres to the street line; 6.0 metres for any dwelling directly fronting Nelson Avenue. Maximum Front Yard N/A Average of the Not required front yards of the abutting lots plus one metre Minimum Side Yard 1.2 metres 1.2 metres Same as RES -4 Minimum Rear Yard 7.5 metres 7.5 metres Same as RES -4 Maximum Building 10.5 metres 11.0 metres Same as RES -4 Height Maximum Lot Total: 55%, 55% Same as RES -4 Coverage Habitable: 45% Minimum Parking for 1 space per 1 space per Same as RES -4 Single Detached dwelling unit dwelling unit Dwelling Section 6 Section 5 Page 330 of 387 Also, because of the unique "lot" orientation of Unit 23 and its connection to a curve in the common driveway, a typical driveway leading to a future single detached dwelling would not comply with the parking regulations. Accordingly, a Site Specific Provision is requested to ensure a typical driveway can be constructed [Provision f)]. Furthermore, Section 4.4.2 of Zoning By-law 2019-051 will apply and will require units within the Vacant Land Condominium to comply with all zoning regulations that apply to single detached dwellings on lots created by plan of subdivision. This general regulation of the Zoning By-law ensures future unit owners redevelop or modify their homes in accordance with the vision and policies of the City's Official Plan. Holding Provision (45H) As a result of the nearby industrial operations, as part of the application submission, the applicant submitted a Stationary Noise Impact Study, prepared by GHD Consulting. The Region reviewed this study and advised that the consultant assessed the cumulative impact of all noise sources on the proposed development. The stationary noise exceeds the noise level limits of the Province by 3 decibels for daytime and 1 decibel for nighttime. The consultant recommended a 1.8 metre high noise wall (approximately 132.77 metres in length) along the southern property line of the City -owned lands (lands directly adjacent to the industrial land uses) to address stationary noise concerns. The Region advises that this exceedance is not acceptable and the exceedance and any required noise mitigation measures must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Region. This may be done by increasing the height of the proposed noise wall or including a berm and wall combination to reduce the exceedances. Accordingly, Regional staff require the implementation of a holding provision to obtain an updated stationary noise study that provides adequate mitigation for the cumulative impact of the stationary noise sources on the proposed sensitive development. In this regard, Holding Provision (45H) is requested to apply to the entirety of the subject lands to prohibit all permitted land uses until such time as a Stationary Noise Study has been completed and implementation measures have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and this holding provision has been removed by by-law. Planning staff recommends that the ZBA be approved as shown in Attachment A. Department and Agency Comments: Preliminary circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Draft Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) was undertaken in June 2022 to applicable City departments and other review authorities. All concerns were satisfactorily addressed through the application review. At the request of the Region, Planning staff is recommending a holding provision to prohibit development until such time as a Stationary Noise Study has been completed and implementation measures have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Region. A consolidation of Department and Agency comments has been included as Attachment D. The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium: • Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium Prepared by: MHBC Planning, March 30, 2023 • Site Plan Drawing Prepared by: MHBC Planning, January 2, 2023 Page 331 of 387 • Parking Plan Prepared by: MHBC Planning, January 2, 2023 • Truck Turning Plan Prepared by: MHBC Planning, January 2, 2023 • Urban Design Brief Prepared by: MHBC Planning, April 2022 (Updated January 2023) • Sustainability Statement Prepared by: MHBC Planning, January 23, 2023 • Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc., December 17, 2021 • Geotechnical Investigation Report Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc., September 28, 2021 • Salt Management Plan Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc., December 17, 2021 • Transportation Impact Brief Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solution, October 28, 2021 • Tree Inventory, Protection, and Removals Plan Prepared by: MHBC Planning, November 12, 2021 • Stationary Noise Impact Study GHD Consulting, October 26, 2021 • Scoped Planning Justification Report Prepared by: MHBC Planning, January 2022 Community Input & Staff Responses WHAT WE HEARD 280 households (occupants and property owners) were circulated and notified Approximately 13 people/households provided comments A City -led Neighbourhood Meeting was held on September 20, 2022 and approximately 12 people logged on Page 332 of 387 In response to community circulation related to the proposed applications, Planning staff received written responses from 13 households. These are found in Attachment E. A summary of what staff heard from the community regarding the proposal, along with staff responses, are noted below: What Staff Heard from the Community Staff Response Traffic and Parking Concerns: The City's Transportation Services (TS) staff reviewed the • Concern that parking and Transportation Impact Brief (October 28, 2021) submitted by traffic congestion will worsen Paradigm Transportation Solutions and supports its in Bridgeport, especially on conclusions. TS also advises that: dead-end streets (Nelson Ave • Transportation Services is of the opinion that the & Sylvia St). estimated traffic generated by this development will have • Concern that new minimal impact on the surrounding road network. developments in Bridgeport • Under existing traffic operations, the intersection of will generate more traffic and Sylvia Street at Schweitzer Street is functioning in the AM congestion. and PM peak hours with acceptable levels of service and • Concern that insufficient operate within capacity. parking for proposed • The vehicle trips expected to be generated as a result of development will overflow the proposed development are as follows (based on the vehicles onto Sylvia and Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip General Nelson. Manual): o Site traffic estimated during AM peak hour: 21 vehicles (enter 5/exit 16). This results in 1 vehicle every 2 minutes 51 seconds. o Site traffic estimated during PM peak hour: 25 vehicles (enter 16/exit 9). This results in 1 vehicle every 2 minutes 24 seconds. • Sufficient parking is proposed supplied for tenants and visitors. [Planning staff also notes that each dwelling will have an attached garage and the proposed private, common element driveway provides sufficient space for "on -street" parking spaces]. Regarding the community concerns regarding traffic in the larger neighbourhood of Bridgeport, Transportation Services has provided the following information (complied from multiple stakeholders, including the Region): • As per Regional staff the current levels of service at the Bridge St/Lancaster St roundabout are generally acceptable. There is some queueing that is occurring on Lancaster Street between Bridge Street and Bridgeport Road in the PM peak caused by the interaction of the traffic signal at Bridgeport Road and the roundabout, and higher volumes of vehicle commuters. Based on the Region's growth model, the level of service at the roundabout in the peak hours is expected to remain the same or deteriorate slightly. There are capacity constraints that prevent increasing vehicle capacity at the roundabout on all three legs that limit the amount of traffic that can access the roundabout. There have been several Environmental Assessments that have occurred on all three legs of Page 333 of 387 the roundabout to consider road widenings. The results of these studies have consistently shown the impact was too great to the natural, social and economic environments to widen either Lancaster Street or Bridge Street (including the consideration of a new bridge to twin the existing Bridgeport Bridge). When the Bridgeport Bridge area Environmental Assessment was undertaken many options were considered. The preferred option was to rehabilitate the exiting historical bridge structure and add the roundabout due to significant natural, social and economic impacts of the alternatives. • There are no plans to modify the roundabout to increase vehicle traffic capacity given engineering constraints identified through the Environmental Assessments. There is no technical, financial, or environmentally sustainable way to accommodate more capacity at this location, except by significantly increasing the modal share of non -auto trips. The Region's long-term plan is to increase the person carrying capacity of its transportation network by improving transit service (for medium and longer distance trips), the cycling network (for short and medium distance trips), and walking (for short trips). There are plans in the area to improve the cycling infrastructure to Triple A facilities (All Ages and Abilities) along Bridgeport Road and Erb Street (from Uptown Waterloo to Lancaster Street) and along Lancaster Street (south of Bridgeport Road). • With the new Highway 7, volumes at the roundabout are expected to be reduced in the future as this is a known alternative for auto trips to and from the Guelph area. The Province has been moving forward with purchasing land and design. In the spring of 2023 MTO is planning to commence the design build process to widen the Frederick Street bridge to accommodate new highway interchange ramps. This is one of the last major infrastructure projects to be undertaken before mainline construction can occur for the new Highway 7. While full funding is not identified in the Provincial Highway Programs at this time, the Province has continued to be committed to moving new Hiahwav 7 alona to construction. Neighbourhood Character The proposal would facilitate the development of single Concerns: detached dwellings which are the predominant land use in the • Concern that proposed surrounding neighbourhood. While the lot area and width of development will change the vacant condominium units ("lots") are smaller than many existing neighbourhood lots in the area, there entire streets in the immediate area that character. comprise lots that are of a similar size (e.g., Schueller St, • Concern that proposed Daniel Ave., and Stanley Ave south of Tagge St). development will not match existing low density Also, the location of the subject lands is on the periphery of neighbourhood character. the low rise residential area, noting the lands are adjacent to Bridgeport Industrial Park. Page 334 of 387 Page 335 of 387 Policy 4.C.1.22. of the Official Plan states that "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." In this case, a new and innovative approach to providing housing is proposed for the area: constructing single detached dwellings on units within a vacant land condominium, on a common element road. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Lastly, the built -form and date of construction within this area is highly varied and there does not appear to be a consistent neighbourhood character. The proposed development will not alter the varied character of the area. Neighbourhood Safety Concerns: Policy 4.1.1. of the Official Plan states than an objective of the City is "To provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix • Concern that "Low-income housing" will create safety of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability issues and increase crime. to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community • Concern that lack of sidewalks through all stages of life." As aforementioned the proposal and bike lanes in Bridgeport will increase housing choice within the Bridgeport area. neighbourhood will create safety conflicts between Transportation Services staff has advised that they have no pedestrians and increased concerns with the proposed development from a safety traffic. perspective and no emergency services concerns have been • Concern that increased traffic flagged. and street parking will impede access to emergency services. Availability of Amenities: The City's Places and Spaces Report states that, "Bridgeport • Concern that residents of East is well above the city-wide average for local park proposed development will provision (25.4 sq.m. per person) through 5 local parks - overcrowd Sylvia Park and Schaefer (1), Sylvia (2), Marisa (3), Paige (4) and Tyson Park push out existing community. (5). The parks are well distributed through the community, • Concern of costs associated though do offer similar recreational features (3 of the 5 with local schools having to contain playgrounds and trails, no other infrastructure expand to accommodate present). Within the community are 2 additional City park residents of new facilities in Joe Thompson Sportsfield and Bridgeport developments in Bridgeport. Sportsfields (6). The ball diamonds and soccer fields are highly programmed and isolated from the community by Bridge St E., but are open to the public during non-active times. The parks do feature a raised pathway on the Grand River levee offering a unique vista of the river, adding value to community use. Conclusion: The community is well serviced for park and recreation service delivery. There is no long term need to consider park acquisitions or expansions. Improvements to the infrastructure within the parks should be prioritized based on asset management or other initiatives." In this regard, Planning staff is not concerned about potential overcrowding of Sylvia Park. Page 335 of 387 In addition, it is proposed that as part of the sale of the a portion of the Tagge Street lands that the owner would enter into a developer -build agreement with the City to construct a formal, public trail along the undeveloped Tagge Street right- of-way, south of the subject lands. This would provide greater access to Sylvia Park. A transit shelter for GRT Route #5 (local bus route) is located near the intersection of Nelson Ave/Schweitzer St, approximately 150 metres from the subject lands. The public and Catholic school boards have not raised any concerns about school accommodation / capacity within this area as a result of the proposed development. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, Planning staff supports the Draft Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) and associated Zoning By-law Amendment. 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. Staff recommends that the applications be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Two large notice signs were posted on the subject lands and information regarding the applications was posted to the City's website in June 2022. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those who responded to the preliminary circulation, and those who attended the Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting on September 20, 2022. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on April 14, 2023 (see Attachment C). CONSULT — The applications were circulated to occupants and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands in June 2022. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 13 households, which are summarized as part of this staff report. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Regional Official Plan Page 336 of 387 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment B — Recommended Conditions of Draft Plan of Condominium Approval and Draft Plan of Condominium Attachment C — Newspaper Notice Attachment D — Department and Agency Comments Attachment E — Community Comments Page 337 of 387 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 — 2415274 Ontario Inc. — 67-71 Nelson Ave) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Number 181 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by removing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto. 2. Schedule Number 181 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 181 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding hereto 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 Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4) with Site Specific Provision (365) and Holding Provision (45H). 4. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 181 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 5. Section 19 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Site Specific Provision (365) thereto as follows: "(365). Notwithstanding Section 4.4.2, Section 5.4, Table 5-2, Section 7.3, Table 7-2, and Section 7.6 of this By-law within the lands zoned RES -4 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 181 of Appendix "A", the following site specific provisions shall apply: a) The minimum lot area shall be 224 square metres; Page 338 of 387 b) The minimum corner lot width shall be 12.5 metres; c) The minimum front yard setback shall be 4.5 metres for any dwelling not directly abutting Nelson Avenue, provided that no part of any building used to accommodate off street parking shall be located closer than 6.0 metres to the street line; d) The minimum front yard setback shall be 6.0 metres for any dwelling directly fronting Nelson Avenue; e) No maximum front yard setback shall be required; and f) A single detached dwelling directly abutting the easterly lot line shall be permitted to have an associated driveway with a maximum width of 4.5 metres as measured at the garage attached to the dwelling. Any increased driveway width resulting from the intersection of the driveway at the curvature of a private road will not result in non- compliance." 6. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section (45H) thereto as follows: "(45). Notwithstanding Section 8 of this By-law within the lands zoned RES -4 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 181 of Appendix "A", no land uses shall be permitted until such time as a Stationary Noise Study has been completed and implementation measures have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and this holding provision has been removed by by-law." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , 2023. Mayor Clerk Page 339 of 387 NGE OSR-3 11N, NO ILI W_�.A I R-5 MAP NO. 1 2415274 ONTARIO INC. 67 & 71 NELSON AVE � N< L i y N� OSR-2 0 50 100 METRES SCALE 1:4,000 DATE: APRIL 12, 2023 OR BY-LAW 85-1 B-2 RESTRICTED BUSINESS PARK ZONE R-3 RESIDENTIAL THREE ZONE R-4 RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE R-5 RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE B-2 25U BY-LAW 2019-051 OSR-2 OPEN SPACE: GREENWAYS ZONE OSR-3 OPEN SPACE: STORMWATER MANAGMENTZONE RES -4 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE ZONE GRID REFERENCE SCHEDULE NO. 136 AND 181 OF APPENDIX 'A' KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 ZONE LIMITS ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA22/011/N/AP OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT N/A City of Kitchener FILE ZBA22011NAP_MAP1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING mxd 182_ _ _ _ _ _ SUBJECT AREA(S) �1 AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 85-1 N 181 AND 2019-051 R-4 AREA 1 - FROM RESIDENTIAL THREE ZONE (R-3) UNDER BY-LAW 85-1 TO LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE (RES -4) WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (365) AND HOLDING PROVISION (45H) UNDER BY-LAW 2019-051 BY-LAW 85-1 B-2 RESTRICTED BUSINESS PARK ZONE R-3 RESIDENTIAL THREE ZONE R-4 RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE R-5 RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE B-2 25U BY-LAW 2019-051 OSR-2 OPEN SPACE: GREENWAYS ZONE OSR-3 OPEN SPACE: STORMWATER MANAGMENTZONE RES -4 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE ZONE GRID REFERENCE SCHEDULE NO. 136 AND 181 OF APPENDIX 'A' KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 ZONE LIMITS ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA22/011/N/AP OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT N/A City of Kitchener FILE ZBA22011NAP_MAP1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING mxd Attachment B Report DSD -2023-198 DRAFT APPROVAL OF CONDOMINIUM 30CDM-22208 67 & 71 NELSON AVE. & PORTION OF UNDEVELOPED TAGGE ST. RIGHT-OF-WAY 2415274 ONTARIO INC. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL The Kitchener City Council, pursuant to Section 51(31) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and By-law 2005-170 as amended by By-law 2007-042, of the City of Kitchener, hereby grants draft approval of Condominium Application 30CDM-22208 for the property municipally known as 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue in the City of Kitchener, subject to the following conditions: That this approval applies to Draft Condominium 30CDM-22208 owned by 2415274 Ontario Inc., dated April 12, 2023 proposing a Vacant Land Condominium Plan for 0.821 hectares of land comprised of common elements and 23 unit: Units 1-23: Residential vacant land condominium units for single detached dwellings (23 units; total of 0.608 hectares). Common Elements: Private road, walkway, servicing, and landscaped area, snow storage area, and noise wall on City lands and subject to an easement in favour of the Owner (total of 0.213 hectares). 2. That the final plan shall be prepared in general accordance with the above noted plan, with a copy of the final plan being approved by the City's Manager of Development Review. 3. That prior to registration, the Owner obtain approval form the City's Addressing Analyst of the following: A. An addressing plan showing the proposed units with Condominium Unit Numbering; and; B. A summary table containing the proposed Condominium Unit Numbering and assigned municipal addresses. 4. That the Condominium Declaration proposed to be registered (the "Declaration") or any amendment thereto to effect the registration of a condominium phase shall be submitted for approval to the City's Manager of Development Review and Regional Municipality of Waterloo's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The said Declaration shall contain: Provisions, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review and Regional Municipality of Waterloo's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services, regarding ownership details and rights and obligations for common elements including, but not limited to, noise wall, access lanes, sanitary, storm and water services, gas utilities and open space/amenity areas, if any. In addition, the Declaration shall contain specific provisions 4 ii) through 4 v), as outlined below, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. ii) That the condominium corporation agrees to maintain the subject lands in compliance with approved Site Plan. Page 341 of 387 iii) Provisions that obligate the condominium corporation to be created upon the registration of the Declaration and Description (the "Condominium Corporation") to implement and maintain any Region required salt management plan related to winter snow and ice clearing obligations of the Condominium Corporation; iv) Provisions that obligate the Unit Owners of the condominium plan to implement and maintain any Region required salt management plan related to winter snow and ice clearing obligations of the said Unit Owners. v) Provisions that identify if the approved condominium plan is to be phased pursuant to the Act that ensure that: a. the lands in the registered condominium plan created by the registration of the Declaration and Description have either direct access or access pursuant to one or more easements satisfactory to the City's Manager of Development Review and the Region's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services to all required municipal and other services and such adjacent street(s) for ingress and egress as required by the said Manager and Commissioner; b. the lands in any phase registered after the initial registration of the Declaration and Description have, following the registration of such phase, either direct access or access pursuant to one or more easements satisfactory to the City's Manager of Development Review and the Region's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services to all required municipal and other services and such adjacent street(s) for ingress and egress as required by the said Manager and Commissioner; the remainder of the lands of the approved condominium plan not yet registered as part of the proposed condominium plan have, following the initial registration of the Declaration and Description or any phase thereof, either direct access or access pursuant to one or more easements satisfactory to the City's Manager of Development Review and the Region's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services to all required municipal and other services and such adjacent street(s) for ingress and egress as required by the said Manager and Commissioner. d. the City's Manager of Development Review and/or the Region's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services may require solicitors' and/or engineers' written opinions as such Manager or Commissioner may deem necessary to establish compliance with any one or more of the conditions set out in the three subparagraphs immediately above. 5. That the Owner provide a written undertaking directed to the City's Manager of Development Review to register a Condominium Declaration which shall include the approved provisions as required in condition 4 hereof. 6. That the Owner provide a written undertaking directed to the City's Manager of Development Review advising that the new home purchasers will be advised in Offers of Purchase and Sale of the location of Centralized Mailboxes. 7. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. Page 342 of 387 8. That the Owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements for utilities and municipal services. The Owner agrees to comply with the following easement procedure: a. For any of such easements that are not blanket easements covering the whole property to provide drafts of any required reference plan(s) portraying the proposed easement(s) location for written approval by the City's Manager of Development Review prior to the registration thereof showing the proposed location of such easements and to circulate such draft reference plan(s) for comment to Enova Power Corp., and any telecommunication companies and the City's Director of Engineering Services to ensure that there are no conflicts between the desired locations for utility easements and those easement locations required by the City's Director of Engineering Services for municipal services. b. If utility easement locations are proposed within lands to be conveyed to, or owned by the City, the Owner shall obtain prior written approval from the City's Manager of Development Review; and C. To provide to the City's Manager of Development Review a clearance letter from each of Enova Power Corp. and the telecommunications company(ies) (if any) supplying telecommunication services to the property. Such letter shall state that company in question has sufficient wire -line communication/telecommunication infrastructure available within the proposed development and have received all required grants of easement, or alternatively, no easements are required. 9. That the Owner shall submit to the City of Kitchener a Letter(s) of Credit to cover 100 percent of the remaining cost of all outstanding and/or uncertified site development works to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. If the approved condominium plan is to be phased according to the Act, the outstanding and/or uncertified site development works in question shall be only those outstanding and/or uncertified site development works within the lands to be included in the condominium plan by the upcoming registration in question. The Letter(s) of Credit shall be kept in force until the completion and certification of the required site development works in conformity with their approved designs. If a Letter(s) of Credit is about to expire without renewal thereof and the works have not been completed and certified in conformity with the approved designs, the City may draw all of the funds so secured and hold them as security to guarantee completion and/or certification, unless the City Solicitor is provided with a renewal of the Letter(s) of Credit forthwith. ii) In the event that the Owner fails to complete the required site development works, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review, then it is agreed by the owner that the City, its employees, agents or contractors may enter on the lands and so complete and/or certify the required site development works to the extent of the monies received under the Letter(s) of Credit. The cost of completion of such works shall be deducted from the monies obtained from the Letter(s) of Credit. In the event that there are required site development works remaining to be completed, the City may by by-law exercise its authority under Section 326 of the Municipal Act to have such works completed and to recover the expense incurred in doing so in like manner as municipal taxes. Page 343 of 387 iii) Other forms of performance security may be substituted for a Letter(s) of Credit, at the request of the owner, provided that approval is obtained from the City Treasurer and City Solicitor. 10. That prior to the initial registration and subsequent amendment phases, the Owner shall provide documentation indicating that any required visitor parking, barrier free parking, rights-of-way for access and easements for servicing, including the maintenance thereof, have been provided over the lands included in preceding registrations as well as any adjacent development lands which are included in this application to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. 11. That prior to the initial registration, where required, at the discretion of the Chief Building Official, that the Owner enter into a shared servicing agreement to be registered on title, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. In addition, where the shared servicing agreement is required: The Owner shall provide a written undertaking to cause the condominium corporation created by the initial registration to enter the same shared servicing agreement after said registration and have the agreement registered on title to the initial registration and proposed future phases, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. A solicitor shall provide an undertaking not to register the shared servicing agreement in any form other that the form approved by the City. 12. That prior to the initial registration, all properties are merged on title, or the Owner provides evidence to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor (which may, without limitation, take the form of a solicitor's firm undertaking) that upon initial registration that all properties shall be merged on title, with no separate mortgages, liens or other encumbrances that would have the potential effect of separating the properties without a Planning Act decision to the satisfaction the of the City Solicitor and Director of Planning. 13. That prior to the initial registration, that Site Plan Application SP22/103/N/AP receive final Site Plan Approval, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 14. That prior to the initial registration, the land transactions related to the sale of a portion of the Tagge Street right-of-way and the establishment of an easement on City lands for a noise wall, to facilitate the proposed condominium, shall be complete, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and City's Manager of Realty Services. 15. That prior to the initial registration, the Owner shall ensure that the Condominium Declaration and/or Condominium Description outlines the construction, maintenance and ownership requirements related to the required noise wall, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, City's Director of Planning, and that a firm solicitor's undertaking (to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor) shall be provided as confirmation that the Condominium Declaration will be registered in the same form as provided to the City in satisfaction of this condition. 16. That prior to the initial registration, the Owner shall provide a letter from an Engineering/Geotechnical Engineer regarding Unit 12, verifying that the bottom of footing elevation is not within the 1:1 zone of influence, if the existing sanitary pipe to the south needs to be excavated in the future, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. Page 344 of 387 17. That prior to the initial registration, the Owner shall provide a letter from an Engineering/Geotechnical Engineer verifying that infiltration galleries will not be negatively impacted during future maintenance or replacement of the existing sanitary sewer to the south. 18. That prior to the initial registration, the Owner shall ensure that the Condominium Declaration includes the following wording to advise all purchasers of residential units and / or renters of the same: "In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. " 19. That prior to the initial registration, the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be registered on the title of the property that implements the following: "All agreements of purchase and sale or leases for the sale or lease of a completed home or a home to be completed on the property must contain the wording set out below to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: `In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. "' 20. That the Owner/Developer agrees to phase/stage development of this condominium in a manner satisfactory to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services and the City of Kitchener, including any easements or other requirements as a result of staging. 21. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a revised Stationary Noise Study and if necessary, shall enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for implementation of the recommended noise study attenuation measures and noise warning clauses to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 22. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a detailed noise wall design report to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 23. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall include the following noise warning clause within the Condominium Declaration and Purchase and Sale/Lease/Rental Agreement(s) to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of the adjacent commercial and industrial facilities, noise from the facilities may at times be audible." And if the noise wall is recommended form of mitigation include the following: "The Developer agrees to preserve the function of and to maintain the noise wall along the southern edge of City owned lands. The purpose of the noise wall is to attenuate noise from the industrial lands to the south. The Developer agrees that the City, through its Page 345 of 387 employees and agents has the right to enter onto the lands to inspect the noise wall. The Developer agrees to repair or, if necessary replace the noise wall. Should the Developer fail to repair or replace the noise wall upon receipt of a written notice from the City, as the City deems necessary, the Developer agrees that the City may undertake such work upon the expiration of the time set out in the notice. If such work is undertaken by the City, the Developer hereby agrees to permit entry upon the lands for this purpose and agrees to reimburse the City fully for all costs of undertaking such work. " 24. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall include the accepted provisions of the Salt Management Plan for the Unit Owners and Condominium Corporation within the Condominium Declaration; all to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 25. That prior to final approval, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be provided with a copy of the registered development agreement between the Owner/Developer and the City of Kitchener. 26. That prior to final approval, that the Condominium Declaration be forwarded to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services at the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. CLEARANCES: That prior to the signing of the final plan by the City's Manager of Development Review, the Owner shall submit a detailed written submission outlining and documenting how conditions 3 through 19 inclusive have been met. The submission shall include a brief but complete statement detailing how and when each condition has been satisfied. 2. That prior to signing of the final plan by the City's Manager of Development Review, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo shall notify the City's Manager of Development Review that Conditions 4i), 4)iii), iv), v), and 20 through 26 have been satisfied. NOTES: The owner is advised that the provisions of the Development Charge By-laws of the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality will apply to any future development on the site. 2. The condominium plan for Registration must be in conformity with Ontario Regulation 43/96 as amended, under the Registry Act. 3. It is the responsibility of the owner of this draft plan to advise the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Department of Planning, Development and Legislative Services and the City of Kitchener Development Services Department of any changes in ownership, agent, address and phone number. 4. The owner is advised that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and City of Kitchener require fees, pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for modification to draft approval and registration release of plans of condominium. 5. This draft plan was received on January 28, 2022 and deemed complete on May 20, 2022 and shall be processed and finally disposed of under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended as of that date. 6. To ensure that a Regional Release is issued by the Region's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services to the City of Kitchener prior to year end, it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that all fees have been paid, that all Regional Page 346 of 387 conditions have been satisfied and the required clearance letters, agreements, prints of plan to be registered, and any other required information or approvals have been deposited with the Regional Planner responsible for the file, no later than December 151h for consideration. Regional staff cannot ensure that a Regional Release would be issued prior to year end where the owner has failed to submit the appropriate documentation by this date. 7. When the proposed Description or any amendment thereto to effect the registration of a phase has been completed and approved by the Land Titles Office the same should be forwarded to the City of Kitchener. If the plans comply with the terms of the approval, and the City of Kitchener has received all required fees, the Regional Release and satisfactory evidence that all conditions of approval have been satisfied, the Manager of Development Review signature will be endorsed on the Description plan or amendment thereto and it will be forwarded to the Land Titles Office for registration. The following is required for registration and under The Registry Act and for our use: Two (2) original mylars Five (5) white paper prints One (1) digital copy Page 347 of 387 Mun, Na, 61 Mun, No. 63 --y UNIT 12 (o.D35hao.ae6ac) Mun. No. 65 E Mun. No, 16 N6W WOVE N65° 11' 2C'E Mun. No. 20 E n UNIT 9 W 10.037ha/0.091 oc) [ s3 Z , Lu W P 4 8 ZQ UNIT 10 f'4-436hW0.46Pacj 0 LAND USE MINIMAX # UNITS AREA (ha.) C/) Residential 23 0.608 'L �i UNIT 11 � I I0.035ho70A8dac} §11 DRAFT PLAN OF VACANT LAND CONDOMINIUM 2415274 ONTARIO INC. 67-71 NELSON AVE Proposed Noise Wall COMMON ELEMENT [0.015ha/0.0370C REVISED: 1iy CONDOMINIUM APPLICATION 30CDM-22248 SCALE: 1:750 City of Kitchener CAD FILE: DATE: APRIL 12, 2023 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLAI`A* g UNIT 12 (o.D35hao.ae6ac) � 4 z� Mun. No, 16 N6W WOVE DRAFT PLAN OF VACANT LAND CONDOMINIUM 2415274 ONTARIO INC. 67-71 NELSON AVE Proposed Noise Wall COMMON ELEMENT [0.015ha/0.0370C REVISED: 1iy CONDOMINIUM APPLICATION 30CDM-22248 SCALE: 1:750 City of Kitchener CAD FILE: DATE: APRIL 12, 2023 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLAI`A* g Mun. No, 16 Mun. No. 20 L W W oe LAND USE MINIMAX # UNITS AREA (ha.) C/) Residential 23 0.608 Common Element 0.213 3 TOTAL 23 0.821 128.735m -= UNIT 1 e 10.437 �a10.0P 1 ae ) CITY OF KITCHENER APPROVAL BLOCK UNIT 8 UNIT 7 UNIT 6 UNIT 5 UNIT 4 UNIT 3 Subject to the conditions, if any, set Forth in our letter dated {0.023ho1 0.057oc) 10,023ha1 0.Wocl 10.023ho1 0.057ocl I0.023ha1 0.0570ct 11:.023ho/ .357ac) I0.023ha1 O.o57oc] - 20J this draft plan is approved under Section UNIT UNIT 2 51 of The Planning Act, 13,5.0. 1990 as amended, this of 10.036ha/O.DBPac} 4.20_ and shall come into effect on the - day Of _ . 20_ provided no appeal is filed pursuant to subsection 51(39) of The Planning Act, COMMON ELEMEHf Garert[ Sleuenson, MCIP, RPP (0.198ha/0.489ac) Manager of Development Review N .NIT 13 UNIT 14 UNIT 15 UNIT 16 UNIT 17 UNIT 18 UNIT 19 UNIT 20 UNIT 21 UNIT 22 UNIT 23 a z .'123hv/ 10,023ho1 i0.023ha/ 10..023ho/ 10-023ho/ 10-023W {0.022ha1 10.022ha! {0.022ho/ 10.022ha/ (0.027ho/ C57vc) 0.057ac) 0.057oc) Q-0wac) O.D57oc) 0.0,57oc) 0.05443c) 0.054ac) 0.054ac1 0.054oct 0.067ac) eb DRAFT PLAN OF VACANT LAND CONDOMINIUM 2415274 ONTARIO INC. 67-71 NELSON AVE Proposed Noise Wall COMMON ELEMENT [0.015ha/0.0370C REVISED: 1iy CONDOMINIUM APPLICATION 30CDM-22248 SCALE: 1:750 City of Kitchener CAD FILE: DATE: APRIL 12, 2023 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLAI`A* g NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 67-71 Nelson Avenue 177 Have Your Voice Heard! Date: May 8, 2023 Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West orVirtuaI Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, ----------------- .1&T-x'meeting details, start time of this item Conceptual Site Plan Drawing orto appearasa delegation, visit: kitchener.ca/meetings To learn more aboutthis project, including information on your ®©appeal rights, visit: ©m© www.kitchener.ca/ �Ij PlanningApplications Yor contact: 23 Single Maximum Vacant Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner Detached 3 Storeys Land 519.741.2200 x 7668 Dwellings Condominium andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener will consider applications proposing a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Vacant Land Condominium (VLC) to facilitate the development of the lands with 23 single detached dwelling units and common element areas consisting of a common driveway, landscaped areas, and noise wall adjacentto nearby industrial lands. Units (lots) would have a minimum lot area of 224 square metres and would be larger fronting Nelson Ave and Sylvia Street (348 m2 to 374 m2). The slFDj@g0n349o©tlj87 portion of the undeveloped Tagge Street right-of-way that that applicant is proposing to purchase from the City. Andrew Pinnell From: Carrie Musselman Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 12:00 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: REVISED Submission re Vacant Land Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan (67 & 71 Nelson Avenue) No updated/amened environmental information ... no concern/comment. From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:24 AM To: Carrie Musselman <Carrie.Musselman@kitchener.ca>; Eric Riek <Eric.Riek@kitchen er.ca>; Mark Parris <Mark.Parris @kitchener.ca>; Gaurang Khandelwal <Gau rang. Khandelwal @ kitchener.ca>; 'Joginder Bhatia' <JBhatia@regionofwaterloo.ca>; MMohr <MMohr@regionofwaterloo.ca> Subject: RE: REVISED Submission re Vacant Land Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan (67 & 71 Nelson Avenue) Just a reminder to please send me any updated comments by today (especially regarding the ZBA and Condo) since this item is going to the May 8t" PSI Committee and needs to be advertised. Thanks, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca 0 1*222h Gqu 0 0 W G KIT t FF FR'z -GREAT _... PI A( -F(; Page 350 of 387 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 67 Nelson Ave, 71 Nelson Ave, and portion of Tagge Street right-of-way Application Type: Vacant Land Condominium 30CDM-22208 Zoning By Law Amendment ZBA22/011/N/AP Comments Of: Environmental Planning — City of Kitchener Commenter's Name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.mussel man@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7068 Date of Comments: June 20, 2022 1. Plans, Studies and Reports submitted as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • Urban Design Brief 61 & 71 Nelson Ave. Prepared by MHBC. April 2022. • Tree Inventory, Protection, and Removals. Dwg. TI -2. Prepared by MHBC. November 2021. 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the supporting documentation (as listed above) to support a Vacant Land Condominium (VLC) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to facilitate the development of 23 single detached dwellings with private driveways and amenity space and provide the following: City Environmental Planning have no concerns regarding the proposed VLC and ZBA from a natural heritage policy perspective. The Tree Management Plan submitted in support of the applications assessed 49 trees, none being a Species at Risk (Butternut or Black Ash). Treed vegetation is comprised mostly of non-native or ornamental species (i.e., Norway Maple and Colorado Spruce) All assessed trees are located interior to the site; therefore, the proposed development (and associated grading and servicing) will not be able to incorporate or conserve the existing trees. Based on my review of the supporting studies the VLC and ZBA can be supported. As noted in the application, tree loss will be offset by integrating street trees, as well as landscaping in the front and rear yards of each of the units in the condominium. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • 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 4. Advisory Comments: N/A Page 351 of 387 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 67 & 71 Nelson Ave Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment and Vacant Land Condominium 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: March 28, 2023 Date of comments: March 28, 2023 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application: • 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue, Kitchener — Sustainability Statement, prepared by MHBC, dated January 21, 2022 • 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue, Kitchener—Addendum to Sustainability Statement, prepared by MHBC, dated January 23, 2023 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support a Zoning By-law Amendment and Vacant Land Condominium to develop the subject lands with 23 single detached condominium units, regarding sustainability and energy conservation and provided the following: ➢ Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is advanced, going forward all developments will need to include robust energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo) strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target. ➢ Based on my review of the supporting documentation, some sustainable measures are being considered for the development of the lands. Further, the applicant has considered sustainability principles from programs such as Energy Star, LEED and Net Zero. ➢ The Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Vacant Land Condominium can be supported. ➢ An updated Sustainability Statement building on the considerations and confirming the sustainability measures being incorporated into the development and site design evolves will be required for the Site Plan application. 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. 1IPage Page 352 of 387 • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the potential for implementing district energy exists. 4. Advice: ➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability- initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise). ➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under 'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement ➢ Green Building Resources • Canada Green Building Council - https://www.cagbc.org// • Developer's guide to passive house buildings - https://www.passivehousecanada.com/passive-house-resources/ • Energy Efficient programs for builders — NRCAN - https://www.nrcan.Rc.ca/energy- efficiency/buildings/new-buildings/20673 • Canada's Building Strategy - https://www.nrcan.Rc.ca/energy- efficiency/buildings/canadas-building-strategy/20535 • Passipedia -The Passive House Resource - https://passipedia.org/ 21 Page Page 353 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Andrew, I have no further comments. Good luck! Rojan Mohammadi Monday, March 27, 2023 8:21 AM Andrew Pinnell RE: REVISED Submission re Vacant Land Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan (67 & 71 Nelson Avenue) Rojan Mohammadi MA, MCIP, RPP, PMP (She/Her) Senior Urban Designer I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7326 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Roi'an.mohammadi kitchener.ca0 0 0 0 @0 () C2, 10 0 REAT Page 354 of 387 Internal memo [Development Services Department Date: May 27, 2022 To: Andrew Pinell, Senior Planner From: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner cc: Garett Stevenson, Manager of Development Review Subject: ZBA22/01 1 /N/AP 67-71 Nelson Avenue Heritage Planning Comments No heritage planning issues or concerns. 1 K[rr%�r R www.kitchener.ca Page 355 of 387 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION Robert Schipper, CBCO Manager of Building City Hall, P.O. Box 1118 200 King St. W., 51" Floor Kitchener, Ontario Canada, N2G 4G7 Phone: (519)741-2836 Fax: (519 741-2775 robert.schipper(o-)kitchener.ca June 6, 2022 Attn: 2415274 Ontario Inc. Subject: Vacant land Condominium application 30CDM-22208 for 67 & 71 Nelson Ave., Kitchener Building Division has no concerns with the vacant land Condominium application. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to respond to this application. Sincerely, Robert Schipper, CBCO Manager of Building c.c. Andrew Pinnell 1 Page 356 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Eric Riek Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 9:24 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: FW: REVISED Submission re Vacant Land Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan (67 & 71 Nelson Avenue) Hi Andrew, Per the email below, the following conditions should be pasted into the condo plan as clearance conditions: A letter from an Engineering/Geotechnical Engineer will be required for the unit shown in Section A -A (Unit 12) verifying that the bottom of footing elevation is not within the 1:1 zone of influence if the sanitary pipe needs to be excavated in the future. The proposed infiltration galleries are within the 1:1 excavation. If groundwater elevations permit, we recommend that these are installed as deep as possible so they are located outside the 1:1 excavation zone. If groundwater elevations don't allow these to be installed deeper (1.0m offset is required from underside of gallery to groundwater elevation), a similar letter from an Engineer/Geotechnical Engineer would be required stating these won't be impacted during future maintenance or replacement of sewer. Any questions, please advise. Eric Riek, C.E.T. Project Manager I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener Page 357 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Eric Riek Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 9:22 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: 67 & 71 Nelson Ave - Resubmission of Materials Hi Andrew, No concerns with the condo plan from an CPA/ZBA perspective. Engineering will have site plan conditions of course but no concerns with moving forward with this plan now. Any questions, please advise. Eric Riek, C.E.T. Project Manager I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener Page 358 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Dave Seller Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 8:54 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: 67 & 71 Nelson Ave - updated condo plan Attachments: Vacant Condo Schedule -30 March 2023.pdf Transportation Services have no concerns with the condo plan. Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.sellerCakitchener.ca Page 359 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Dave Seller Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 9:39 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: ZBA and Condominium Application comments: 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue City of Kitchener Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment and Condominium Application Applications: ZBA22/011/N/AP & 30CDM-22208 Project Address: 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue Comments of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 Date of Comments: July 4, 2022 a. Transportation Service have no concerns with the proposed Zoning By-law amendment or Vacant Land Condominium application being proposed for this development. b. Transportation Services have no concerns with the sale of the Tagge Street right-of-way for the purposes of development and for a trail corridor. c. After reviewing the Transportation Impact Brief (October 28, 2021) submitted by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, Transportation Services offer the following comments. The applicant is proposing to develop 23 single detached family houses. The development is estimated to generate 21 AM and 25 PM peak hour vehicle trips, with two access points servicing the site. One access at Nelson Avenue and the second access along Sylvia Street. Under existing traffic operations, the intersection of Sylvia Street at Sweitzer Street is functioning in the AM and PM peak hours with acceptable levels of service and operate within capacity. The 2026 Total Traffic Operations revealed that the intersections of Sylvia Street at Sweitzer Street and Nelson Avenue at the site access are both forecasted to operate with acceptable levels of service and operate within capacity in the AM and PM peak hours. A left turn lane analysis was completed for Sylvia Street at Sweitzer Street and Nelson Avenue at the site access and under the 2026 Total Traffic Operations conclude that a left turn lane is not warranted at either location. The warrants for left -turn lanes follow the requirements in the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario's (MTO) Design Supplement for Transportation Associations of Canada's (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canada Roads (TAC- GDGCR). Therefore, based on Paradigm's analysis and conclusions within their report, Transportation Services are of the opinion that the traffic generated by this development will have minimal impact on the surrounding road network. Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.sellerCakitchener.ca o(0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i Page 360 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Mark Parris Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:37 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: REVISED Submission re Vacant Land Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan (67 & 71 Nelson Avenue) OK that makes it straight forward for Parks then since all of our requirements are tied to the SPA and land sale. I do not have any direct ZBA/Condo comments. The SPA requirement that was linked to the ZBA to "consult with the community on how the turning circle is being used"was completed and did not result in any feedback from the community. Mark From: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:32 PM To: Mark Parris <Mark.Parris@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: REVISED Submission re Vacant Land Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment & Site Plan (67 & 71 Nelson Avenue) Hi Mark, The main thing I'm looking for is whether there are any ZBA / Condo comments. SP comments would be great, but ZBA/ Condo comments are vital. Thanks, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca 0 496-0,6 00000turu AAA GREAT 1 Page 361 of 387 N* Region of Waterloo Andrew Pinnell, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Pinnell, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionotwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 1-226-752-8622 File: D1920/2/22218 C1460/2/22208 March 28, 2023 Re: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 22/011 and Vacant Land Plan of Condo 30CDM-22208 67-71 Nelson Avenue MHBC Planning Ltd. (C/O Pierre Chauvin) on behalf of 2415274 Ontario Inc. CITY OF KITCHENER The Region has prepared the following comments relating to the above noted Zoning By-law Amendment and Vacant Land Plan of Condominium proposed on the lands addressed as 67-71 Nelson Avenue in Kitchener. The purpose of these comments is to identify any items that need to be address prior to consideration of the Zoning By-law Amendment and/or draft approval and those that can be imposed as conditions of approval or through the use of a Holding Provision. Original Proposal: The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Vacant Land Plan of Condominium are associated with a Site Plan application to facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with 23 vacant units that are planned for single detached dwellings serviced by a private condominium road. The private condominium road would extend from Sylvia Street to Nelson Avenue creating two access points for the development. In addition, the applicant is proposing to acquire a portion of the adjacent Tagge Street right-of-way for development purposes from the City of Kitchener. The balance of the right-of-way is proposed to be retained by the City for trail purposes. Document Number: 4344908 Version: 1 Page 362 of 387 The subject lands are located in the Urban Area of the Region and Designated Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan. In addition, the subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned Residential Three (R-3) Zone in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-01. The applicant has proposed to rezone the majority of the site from the R-3 Zone to the RES -4 Zone. The applicant is proposing to rezone lands immediately south of 67-71 Nelson Avenue (portion applicant is requesting to purchase from the City) from R-3 to RES -4 to allow an expansion of the buildable area for the above noted development. The applicant has also proposed to rezone the lands described as Area 2 on Map 1 of the Media Release from the Restricted Business Park Zone (B-2) with Special Regulation Provision 36R under By-law 85-1 to Open Space Greenways Zone (OSR-2). In addition, the applicant has proposed to rezone the lands that are identified as Area 3 on Map 1 of the Media Release from the Restricted Business Park Zone (B-2) with Special Provision 36R to Open Space Greenways Zone (OSR-2) with a Site Specific Provision. Current Proposal: The applicant continues to propose 23 residential units through a vacant land plan of condominium and rezone the lands to permit the increased density on site. It is Regional staff's understanding that the applicant is proposing to purchase a portion of lands directly adjacent to 67 and 71 Nelson Avenue and that the City will retain the remainder of the lands. Regional staff also understand that the proposed noise attenuation wall/barrier will be on lands that will be owned by the City and the Owner/Developer of 67-71 Nelson Avenue will retain rights over the noise barrier/wall. The lands addressed as 67-71 Nelson Avenue will be rezoned from R-3 to RES -4 with site specific provisions, the lands to be purchased from the City will be rezoned from Restricted Business Park Zone (B-2) Zone to RES -4 with site specific provisions and the lands retained by the City will be rezoned from the Restricted Business Park Zone (B-2) Zone to an Open Space Greenways Zone (OSR-2) with a site specific provision. These comments relate to the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Plan of Condominium prepared by MHBC Planning Inc.; dated September 30, 2021; signed by the Owner January 21, 2022 and the Surveyor January 19, 2022; File No. 16233G (to be updated to reflect the current proposal): Regional Comments Community Planning 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 is designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Document Number: 4344908 Version: 1 Page 363 of 387 Regional staff acknowledge that the Built Up Area is intended to provide gentle density and other missing middle housing options that are designed in a manner that supports the achievement of 15 -minute neighbourhoods. This development shall contribute to the intensification target of 60% within the City of Kitchener's Built Up Area. Land Use Compatibility: The development proposal includes a density increase of a sensitive land use in proximity to existing industrial land uses to the south of the site. Regional staff consider the industrial land uses to be Class II land uses. Class II industrial land uses are recommended to be set back a minimum of 70 metres from sensitive land uses in accordance with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) D-6 Series Guidelines. Regional staff acknowledge that the existing land use permissions include residential land uses that are adjacent to existing permitted industrial land uses. As the subject lands contain existing permitted residential land uses, Regional staff have no objection to the proposed development from a land use compatibility perspective. Further to the above, Regional staff have no objection to the applications, subject to the following technical comments and conditions related to the proposal: Stationary Noise Regional staff have reviewed the stationary noise study entitled "Stationary Noise Impact Study, Proposed Residential Development — 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario" (GHD, October 26, 2021), and cannot accept the study at this time. A holding provision shall be implemented to ensure an updated study and recommended implementation measures are received to the satisfaction of the Region. The report identifies a number of stationary noise sources that may be classified as Class I or Class II industrial uses within the vicinity of the site. The noise consultant has modelled the predicted stationary noise impacts of these facilities on the subject site and based on the assumptions used in the modelling, the individual facilities meet noise level limits for a Class 1 acoustical area under NPC -300 at points of reception for the daytime and nighttime at the proposed development. Although noise level limits are met by the noise sources facilities individually, the Region requires that the cumulative impact of stationary noise sources to be assessed and addressed appropriately. The cumulative impact of all noise sources on the development have been assessed by the noise consultant and stationary noise exceeds the noise level limits by 3 dBA for daytime and 1 dBA for nighttime. The noise consultant has recommended a 1.8m high noise wall (approximately 132.77m in length) along the southern property line of the City owned lands (lands directly adjacent to the industrial land uses) to address stationary noise concerns. This exceedance is not acceptable and the exceedance and any required noise mitigation measures must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. This may be done by increasing the height of the Document Number: 4344908 Version: 1 Page 364 of 387 proposed noise wall or including a berm and wall combination to reduce the exceedances. Regional staff shall require the implementation of a Holding Provision to obtain an updated stationary noise study that provides adequate mitigation for the cumulative impact of the stationary noise sources on the noise sensitive development. The required wording of the Holding Provision is: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a satisfactory stationary noise study has been completed and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. In addition to the above, the study shall include a discussion whether any facilities referred to in the report have a MECP Environmental Compliance Approval and whether there is any hitching and unhitching of trailers from the W.S. Bell Cartage noise source (transportation parking facility). In addition, please be advised that the Region does not have a noise by-law and this should be updated within the report. Finally, the any recommended noise wall shall be designed to have a minimum surface density of 20 kg/m2 and be constructed without gaps within and beneath the extent of the wall. Hydrogeology and Water Programs Regional staff have reviewed the salt management plan entitled "67-71 Nelson Avenue Salt Management Plan" dated December 17, 2021 prepared by MTE and accept the plan. Regional staff require the following to be implemented as a condition of draft plan approval: THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall include the accepted provisions of the Salt Management Plan for the Unit Owners and Condominium Corporation within the Condominium Declaration; all to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; Housing Services The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. Rent levels and house prices that are considered affordable according to the Regional Official Plan are provided below in the section on affordability. Staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site. In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides, a mechanism should be in place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes. Document Number: 4344908 Version: 1 Page 365 of 387 Staff further recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs and mechanisms to support a defined level of affordability. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit, based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan, the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $385,500 annual household income for low and moderate income households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average $576,347 purchase price of a resale unit in the 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. Conclusions relating to Zoning By-law Amendment: Regional staff have no objection to Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/011 subject to the following Holding Provision being implemented within the Zoning By-law Amendment: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a satisfactory stationary noise study has been completed and recommended implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Conclusions related to Draft Plan of Condominium: The Region has no objections to draft approval of Vacant Land of Condominium 30CDM-22208, subject to the inclusion of the following conditions of Draft Approval set out below: 1) THAT the Owner/Developer agrees to phase/stage development of this condominium in a manner satisfactory to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services and the City of Kitchener, including any easements or other requirements as a result of staging; 1) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a revised Stationary Noise Study and if necessary, shall enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for implementation of the recommended noise study attenuation measures and noise warning clauses to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Document Number: 4344908 Version: 1 Page 366 of 387 2) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a detailed noise wall design report to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 3) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall include the following noise warning clause within the Condominium Declaration and Purchase and Sale/Lease/Rental Agreement(s) to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of the adjacent commercial and industrial facilities, noise from the facilities may at times be audible." And if the noise wall is recommended form of mitigation include the following: "The Developer agrees to preserve the function of and to maintain the noise wall along the southern edge of City owned lands. The purpose of the noise wall is to attenuate noise from the industrial lands to the south. The Developer agrees that the City, through its employees and agents has the right to enter onto the lands to inspect the noise wall. The Developer agrees to repair or, if necessary replace the noise wall. Should the Developer fail to repair or replace the noise wall upon receipt of a written notice from the City, as the City deems necessary, the Developer agrees that the City may undertake such work upon the expiration of the time set out in the notice. If such work is undertaken by the City, the Developer hereby agrees to permit entry upon the lands for this purpose and agrees to reimburse the City fully for all costs of undertaking such work. " 4) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall include the accepted provisions of the Salt Management Plan for the Unit Owners and Condominium Corporation within the Condominium Declaration; all to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; 5) THAT prior to final approval, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be provided with a copy of the registered development agreement between the Owner/Developer and the City of Kitchener; and, 6) THAT prior to final approval, that the Condominium Declaration be forwarded to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services at the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Fees By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the Plan of Condominium and Zoning By-law Amendment Review Fee of $10,255.00 (deposited July 21, 2022). Document Number: 4344908 Version: 1 Page 367 of 387 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 Cc (via email). MHBC Planning Ltd. C/O Pierre Chauvin (Agent), 2415274 Ontario Inc. (Owner) Document Number: 4344908 Version: 1 Page 368 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:52 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - Vacant Land Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment (67 & 71 Nelson Avenue) Good Morning Andrew, 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 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." C) That the developer enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on the title to the Property that provides: "All agreement of purchase and sale or leases for the sale or lease of a completed home or a home to be completed on the Property must contain the wording set out below 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 Page 369 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: To: Subject: 2022-06-28 Andrew Pinnell Kitchener Attention: Andrew Pinnell circulations@wsp.com Tuesday, June 28, 2022 10:59 AM Andrew Pinnell [EXTERNAL] ZBLA (ZBA22/011/N/AP) and Draft Plan of Condominium (30CDM-22208); 67 and 71 Nelson Ave., Kitchener Re: ZBLA (ZBA22/011/N/AP) and Draft Plan of Condominium (30CDM-22208); 67 and 71 Nelson Ave., Kitchener; Your File No. 30CDM-22208,ZBA22/011/N/AP Our File No. 93767 Dear Sir/Madam, We have reviewed the circulation regarding the above noted application. The following paragraphs are to be included as a condition of approval: "The Owner acknowledges and agrees to convey any easement(s) as deemed necessary by Bell Canada to service this new development. The Owner further agrees and acknowledges to convey such easements at no cost to Bell Canada. The Owner agrees that should any conflict arise with existing Bell Canada facilities where a current and valid easement exists within the subject area, the Owner shall be responsible for the relocation of any such facilities or easements at their own cost." The Owner is advised to contact Bell Canada at planninganddevelopment@bell.ca during the detailed utility design stage to confirm the provision of communication/telecommunication infrastructure needed to service the development. It shall be noted that it is the responsibility of the Owner to provide entrance/service duct(s) from Bell Canada's existing network infrastructure to service this development. In the event that no such network infrastructure exists, in accordance with the Bell Canada Act, the Owner may be required to pay for the extension of such network infrastructure. If the Owner elects not to pay for the above noted connection, Bell Canada may decide not to provide service to this development. To ensure that we are able to continue to actively participate in the planning process and provide detailed provisioning comments, we note that we would be pleased to receive circulations on all applications received by the Municipality and/or recirculations. Page 370 of 387 Please note that WSP operates Bell's development tracking system, which includes the intake of municipal circulations. WSP is mandated to notify Bell when a municipal request for comments or for information, such as a request for clearance, has been received. All responses to these municipal circulations are generated by Bell, but submitted by WSP on Bell's behalf. WSP is not responsible for Bell's responses and for any of the content herein. If you believe that these comments have been sent to you in error or have questions regarding Bell's protocols for responding to municipal circulations and enquiries, please contact planninganddevelopment@bell.ca Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Ryan Courville Manager - Planning and Development Network Provisioning Email: planninganddevelopment@bell.ca NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise subject to restricted disclosure under applicable law. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on, this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized or intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. You are receiving this communication because you are listed as a current WSP contact. Should you have any questions regarding WSP's electronic communications policy, please consult our Anti -Spam Commitment at www.wsp.com/casl. For any concern or if you believe you should not be receiving this message, please forward this message to caslcompliance(cDwsp.com so that we can promptly address your request. Note that not all messages sent by WSP qualify as commercial electronic messages. AVIS : Ce message, incluant tout fichier I'accompagnant (<< le message v), peut contenir des renseignements ou de ('information privilegies, confidentiels, proprietaires ou a divulgation restreinte en vertu de la loi. Ce message est destine a I'usage exclusif du/des destinataire(s) voulu(s). Toute utilisation non permise, divulgation, lecture, reproduction, modification, diffusion ou distribution est interdite. Si vous avez requ ce message par erreur, ou que vous n'etes pas un destinataire autorise ou voulu, veuillez en aviser 1'expediteur immediatement et detruire le message et toute copie electronique ou imprimee. Vous recevez cette communication car vous faites partie des contacts de WSP. Si vous avez des questions concernant la politique de communications electroniques de WSP, veuillez consulter notre Engagement anti-pourriel au www.wsp.com/Icap. Pour toute question ou si vous croyez que vous ne devriez pas recevoir ce message, priere de Ie transferer au conformitelcapa-wsp.com afin que nous puissions rapidement traiter votre demande. Notez que ce ne sont pas tous les messages transmis par WSP qui constituent des messages electroniques commerciaux. Page 371 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 5:20 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - Vacant Land Condominium & Zoning By-law Amendment (67 & 71 Nelson Avenue) Hey Andrew, This is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment. Thanks, Trevor Heywood Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority theywood@grandriver. ca www.grandriver.ca I Connect with us on social media Page 372 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: LANDUSEPLANNING <LandUsePlanning@HydroOne.com> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 10:23 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Christine Kompter Subject: [EXTERNAL] Kitchener - 67 and 71 Nelson Avenue - 30CDM-22208 Hello, We are in receipt of your Draft Plan of Condominium Application, 30CDM-22208 dated June 3, 2022. We have reviewed the documents concerning the noted Plan and have no comments or concerns at this time. Our preliminary review considers issues affecting Hydro One's 'High Voltage Facilities and Corridor Lands' only. For proposals affecting 'Low Voltage Distribution Facilities' please consult your local area Distribution Supplier. To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please follow the following link: http://www.hydroone.com/StormCenter3/ Please select " Search" and locate address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the map ■om ? mom MENU HELP SEARCH Customers Affected: 0 >5000 501-5000 0 51-500 0 21-50 () <=20 Huntsville 77 • pr l�wa ICawaes i Lees s"-I—�"i����Tii"1 Peterrauyh If Hydro One is your local area Distribution Supplier, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e-mail CustomerCommunications@HydroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre Thank you, Kitty Luk Real Estate Assistant I Land Use Planning Hydro One Networks Inc. 185 Clegg Road Markham, ON I L6G 1137 Email: landuseplanning@hvdroone.com 1 Page 373 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Wen Xiao Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 1:59 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback about 67&71 Nelson Avenue Development Project Dear Andrew; I am the homkim Kitchener. We bought this house in February this year with a high price because we love this low density quiet area, especially the big green space To be honest, I am so disappointed to see the current development plan to build 23 dwelling Units in such a small area! This high density 23 dwelling Unit development plan does not match the overall zoning layout in this area. And this plan does not show enough parking space which would create high traffic in this area especially in front of my house. And now the grand river bridge on Bridge street East has very heavy traffic especially during the rush hour. This plan would make the traffic worse for sure. The other point is the new street added in this plan would create flood or blow heavy snow into Nelson street because the land at Sylvia Street is much higher than Nelson Ave. This development plan does not specify either the maximum height or the square footage for each dwelling unit. And why do they want to change the zoning By-law? Most homes in this area have a big backyard. If that's the case, does this mean everybody can apply the zoning By-law change and build multiple small dwelling units in the backyard? I suggest we keep the same zoning with a low density residential plan and maintain the existing street layout - Sylvia street and Nelson Ave. I don't mind if they build 5 to 6 multi -generation houses (Single detached or Semi) on each street (10 to 12 houses in total), which may generate the same amount of property tax for the City, and also good investment income for the developer (the developer only bought 2 houses on this land with very low investment). Please consider my suggestion and look forward to your support! Best regards, Wen Xiao Page 374 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Candice Belben Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 12:48 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 67 Nelson Ave Hello, This email is in regards to the 67 Nelson Ave proposed purpose. Adding 23 detached home to such a small area, where driveways can only fit 1 vehicle only creates problems such as: 1. More parking on the street because of tiny driveways. This creates issues for snow removal, garbage/recycling collections. Also poses safety hazards to pedestrians 2. Sylvia St is a dead end street and should remain that way to avoid busy roads around the park. 3. 23 houses means at the very least 46 more vehicles. You add in those vehicles to the other vehicles with the houses/new builds in the area and you are going to have a lot worse traffic back ups than you already have. Bloomingdale Rd is usually backed up at least twice a day as well as Bridge St from Lancaster to past Schweitzer 4. This area is not designed for more growth. 5. If you insist on building in this area at least try to keep some of the integrity. 6. There are new builds on Bridge St (opposite of Hollinger Cres). New builds/complex on Schweitzer/Stanley from what I've heard. New houses throughout the area on property that was vacant before. You also have a huge building on Lancaster/Bridgeport that is going to cause major traffic concerns Page 375 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Derek Hammer Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 1:02 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Pamela Hammer Subject: [EXTERNAL] 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue Application for Development Hello Andrew, Our family resides on Nelson Avenue a few houses away from the proposed development at 67 and 71 Nelson Avenue. We have concerns as well as some suggested changes that we'd like to bring forward for your consideration. Our main concern is the amount of units being proposed. We moved to this area of town because we wanted to raise a family in a quiet neighbourhood and on a low traffic and lower density residential street. The proposed development would require the removal of 2 existing houses and building 23 units on the same amount of land, which is almost 12 times the density of the surrounding established neighbourhood. With this amount of units, there brings other concerns, such as congestion on our roads (traffic and parking), increased use of the park, and the potential for an increase in criminal activity in our well established neighbourhood. These concerns are also amplified due to the additional nearby proposed development at 26 Stanley Ave & 31 Schweitzer St, as well as the glass factory that is currently being developed on Bridge St. The current amount of traffic in our neighbourhood has increased substantially since moving into the Bridgeport area in 2016. The traffic over the bridge and through the roundabout at Bridge/Lancaster is frequently congested, as Bridgeport is an access point for people commuting from the east (e.g. Guelph), on top of our existing Bridgeport traffic. Building another 23 units, in addition to the 71 units proposed for the Stanley/Schweitzer development brings additional concerns on the traffic situation in the area. The road going in and out of Bridgeport (Bridge St.) has no potential to be widened due to the proximity of existing residences to the road. With the increased residential density proposed for this and other development in the area, there brings concerns on the general increase in traffic in the area (longer travel times to work, appointments, etc.) but more importantly, concerns about emergency vehicle access to our community. In addition to the main roads, we also have concerns that the units will add traffic to our street, compromising the safety of our children playing on or near our street. Parking on Nelson Ave will also be affected by the number of units proposed due to the small property sizes. Most home owners have more than one vehicle, especially in this area since the transit system does not run 24/7 and the length of time it takes to get in/out of our community. Nelson Ave will likely serve as a parking overflow from this proposed development, as with the current design, there will be no room for more than one vehicle per driveway (they are considerably smaller than the driveways in our existing neighbourhood), and "Street One" is guaranteed to be full of parked vehicles. The street parking on this section of Nelson Ave is already regularly more than half full from existing residents. Residents in the area (including our family) frequently use Sylvia Park, which has a small playground for young children. The additional units adjacent to the park will increase playground traffic. The playground is quite small, and we feel as though the park would be taken over by residents of the new development, making it difficult for children in the existing community to access. We are also concerned that increasing the density of housing in the area will come with an increase in criminal activity to our community, and specifically to residents on our street. Page 376 of 387 In summary, we are concerned the number of units proposed is not in the best interest of our community and we ask that you strongly consider reducing the amount of units proposed, and possibly consider semi-detached or larger detached homes with larger property sizes in place of the smaller units, which would make the development more uniform with the existing community. Thanks for your time and consideration, Derek and Pam Hammer Page 377 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: James Kuttelwascher Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 8:28 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 67 & 71 Nelson Ave. Kitchener building proposal Hello Andrew, I am writing to you today to voice my concerns with the proposed building plan for 67 and 71 Nelson Ave. in kitchener. We live across the street, and this development affects us directly. Firstly, our neighbourhood cannot accommodate the increase in population as the roads are small. Traffic is already an issue coming in and out of bridgeport. This increase in population will bring more traffic and more issues. Secondly, with the proposed visitor parking being on the road, this is not a realistic plan for the neighbourhood. The roads are narrow, we do not have sidewalks and we barely have enough road parking for the current residents. This will not only congest these roads, but make it unsafe for our family to go walking as well as our neighbours families. Lastly, this is a mature neighborhood. We do not want this new development in the area. We moved here to enjoy the quietness and maturity. Creating this many homes in the area is going to ruin a wonderful place to live. This will bring chaos and noise to a quiet area. With this being "low income housing", it will also bring the negative effects that low income housing brings. A prime example is Paulander Dr and Howe drive in Kitchener. We have a small family and would like to continue living in a safe and quiet neighbourhood. We understand this land is going to be developed at some point. It would be greatly appreciated if you would take into consideration all the people it affects. We can all work together to come up with a plan that suits everyone. We recommend no more than 4 houses be built on this land. 2 on Nelson, 2 on Sylvia. This would maintain the current appearance and traffic flow of the neighbourhood. Thank you, James Kuttelwascher Page 378 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Jim Meagher Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 5:12 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 67 and 71 Nelson Avenue Hello Andrew, I am responding to a feedback request. Firstly I am concerned as to the limited distribution of this request, a straw poll of the neighbours has revealed a great mistrust of this process, especially on the heels of the Stanley St proposed development. The site plan drawing has no scale, lot sizes, unit sizes, setbacks from the street and sidewalk allowance are not revealed. There is no indication of parking for individual units. I can only speculate that the density of the project is far different than the rest of the established subdivision, so where are the vehicles going to park? How are emergency vehicles going to be able to service? From what I can see this project does not meet the established standard of neighbourhood. Unfortunately there are not sidewalks and curbs throughout the whole subdivision most notably on Schweitzer, hence the roadway has pedestrian component constantly. By introducing more cars you are increasing the risk to the individuals of the neighbourhood. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. Jim Meagher Ps the scale of this project does not work as presented, and does not align with the Complete Street Kitchener vision Sent from Mail for Window Page 379 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: KATHERINE VAN OORDT Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 6:56 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed housing on Nelson Ave. Mr. Pinnell: I am writing you on behalf of my family and myself regarding the proposed building that are to be built at the end of Nelson Ave and Tagge St. My family and I have lived in this area for over 31 years and we choose this area because it was quiet , neighbours weren't close and you feel like you are in the country but still close to stores. I have raised all my children here and now one child is living in the same area as it is quiet and close to their work. My daughter and her husband have built a 3 bay garage and 2 bedroom apartment on our land. Children can play on the street with no traffic. The problem with this proposal is: 1. Increased traffic coming and going into Bridgeport. 2. Safety issues that we have already with fire, police and ambulance unable to get through during anytime of day. 3. Parking on our street will increase for visitors from that area and parking can be troublesome at times. 4. Increased traffic on a dead end street. 5. Crossing the bridge at the round about will be unbelievable. 6. 75 more houses are to be built on Stanley which will increase traffic again. Again more problems. 7 The area that was once Stead and Evans is now getting ready to build whatever there and then there is more traffic 8.Schools will have to increase in size due to many more children attending. More expense. We would like to see Tagge Street go straight through to relieve traffic flow on Nelson and build possible 6 semi -detach houses instead with no first time buyers buildings as this becomes a problem with people not looking after their homes. No low rental housing should not be allowed as this becomes a hazard with drug or meth houses which is a big problem. Respectfully Kathy, Jim , Lindsay Van Oordt and Rocky Jean Page 380 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Larry Musselman Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:14 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 67&71 Nelson Ave I am writing to you about the possible zone change for these properties. As a residential property owner that will be directly impacted by this proposal, I can say this is not welcome or wanted. The proposed development does not in any way fit or conform to the existing neighborhood and surrounding homes. I purchased my property at twelve years ago because of the large lot, quiet location and minimal traffic. As a homeowner I strongly disagree that a developer/builder should have the ability to take my reasons for choosing to live in this neighborhood away from me. This is an existing, established neighborhood and to completely change it, just to profit for themselves and give absolutely no benefits to the surrounding area and owners is extremely one sided. I think we all can come up with a much better solution for these properties that will be satisfactory to everyone Looking forward to hearing from you. Larry Musselman Page 381 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Mary Ann Scroggins Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:04 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Development Hi Andrew - I see that you are the senior planner for the city of Kitchener, so I hope you can help me out. I live I moved here about 4 years ago. I used to live in uptown Waterloo, but it was getting too crowded for me. I moved to Nelson Avenue because it is a quieter area with larger lots. This is still the case. However, if the development goes through at 67 & 71 Nelson Ave, which is literally 2 houses down, my move 4 years ago will have been a waste of time and money. I realize that there will be some development however, putting in 23 new units, and some of them appear to be low rise apartments, is ridiculous and should not happen. It will completely turn the area into a much busier, louder neighborhood than it is now. I am close to retirement. That is the main reason I moved here. I really can not afford to move again before retiring. Please, help keep the uniqueness and quiet of Bridgeport. It is a great place! Sincerely, Mary Scroggins Page 382 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Rachel Dann Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2022 6:29 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sylvia/Nelson development comments Hello Andrew, I live on Daniel Ave in Kitchener, in the neighborhood of the proposed Bridgeport development. I am strongly against this development as it will cause a great increase in traffic to the area, especially on Nelson Street and the Bridge St.. Nelson and Daniel are already street parking heavy, and the bridge is completely congested during rush hours of 7 to 9 am and 3 to 7 pm right now. The bridge is the only nearby pathway from Bridgeport to the rest of the city. Existing traffic from Cambridge and Guelph already makes it a nightmare for those who live in Bridgeport and Bloomingdale. Emergency services such as an ambulance would never get through on time as it stands now, so I can't imagine adding more houses, people and vehicles to that equation. That's an accident waiting to happen. Bridgeport has already seen recent new builds making things more crowded, please do not make it even worse!! Also, the bridge is scheduled for closure right now until Fall 2022, making traffic extra slow and jammed ....this is without adding approximately 50 more vehicles. Please stop building in Bridgeport unless you can make another nearby roadway to the rest of the city!! Thank you, Rachel Dann Kitchener, ON. Get Outlook for Android Page 383 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Robin Runstedler Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 6:16 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Pat Runstedler Subject: [EXTERNAL] 67 & 71 Nelson Ave. Kitchener Dear Andrew, We live at We moved here 18 years ago, knowing we wanted a home to grow old in. The quiet neighborhood was what sold us on the area. Our house needed ALOT of work and since then have put our renovations before trips or boats, snowmobiles, etc. This development does not belong in our neighborhood. We would like to discuss further at a public meeting. Please inform us when and where this will take place. Thank you, Robin and Pat Runstedler Page 384 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Sandra Levesque > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:42 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Development in Bridgeport I received the notice of a planned development in the Nelson/Sylvia Street area in the Bridgeport area of Kitchener. I am replying for a number of neighbours on Schweitzer Street between Nelson and Daniel Streets. Our concern is not so much with the type of development but the impact on traffic. Currently, only as a result of recent building, traffic backs up daily at rush hours (3-6 pm) on Lancaster Street at Bridgeport Road bumper to bumper several blocks on Bloomingdale Road and on Bridge Street well past Schweitzer and Logel's. This is as bad as it was before the roundabout was built. There already have been built multiple condos on Bridge Street going toward University as well as the first of several proposed buildings where the church was at the corner of Lancaster and Bridgeport Road. Now to add 23 more homes will only add to the congestion. Our question for the city is: What plans do you have to alleviate traffic congestion so that residents of Bridgeport are not physically "trapped" each day for several hours. I am not exaggerating. I invite you to sit at the roundabout some day and see for yourself. Our suggestion would be to either build a roundabout at Lancaster and Bridgeport Road or build the bridge across the river that will ultimately serve the new? road to Guelph, giving residents an alternate path to the rest of the city. On behalf of my neighbours I would urge you to schedule a Neighbourhood meeting to discuss further plans. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns. Mrs. Sandra Levesque Page 385 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: Schneider Garland, Trena Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 11:21 AM To: Andrew Pinnell; Scott Davey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Development 67 & 71 Nelson Ave Hi Andrew and Scott, I wanted to provide some feedback and I have a few questions regarding the Application for Development for 67 and 71 Nelson Ave. In order to support a build like this the infrastructure around Bridgeport needs to be improved. Some points that need to be addressed: 1. The traffic bottle necks at the bridge over the Grand River all of the time. The quickest access to any emergency services is over this bridge. 2. The roads in this area do no have sidewalks or bike lanes. This is a safety concern for our children and citizens that play and walk in this area. The increased traffic is going to make it less safe. 3. The speed limit in this whole area is still 50 km/h and many people drive way faster than that. The speed limit needs to be reduced with increase signage as well as crosswalks, speed humps, and road lane signs. What is the plan for the park on Sylvia SO Will it be removed? Will there be fencing put up around it? What will the speed limit be around this park? That is all I can think of for now. Thanks, Trena Garland 1 Page 386 of 387 Andrew Pinnell From: TAMMY LAPPAGE Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 3:12 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments to Application for Re -Zoning at 67 & 71 Nelson Avenue ZBA22/011/N/AP Hello Andrew, My name is Tammy Lappage and I live at and I would like to offer the following comments to the proposed development and Re -zoning application. I have lived at for 22 years. When my husband (now deceased) and I were purchasing our new home, we looked at various properties in the Kitchener area. We happily settled here in the Bridgeport East Community as the area had exactly what were looking for. A quiet neighbourhood, low traffic streets, large back yards, street scapes mostly the same (bungalows) and minimal people. Granted, we did have to give up some amenities such as street lights, no schools, no shopping plaza such as groceries etc., last on the list for snow removal etc. but we happily did that as the latter was more important to us. BEFORE we purchased our home we did our due dilicience and investigated the as that area was forest back in 2000 and had not yet been developed. ALL of the Zoning was R-3, single residential and still is. We also investigated that Tagge Street had a right of way proposed to be extended to Daniel St. Over the years, I have invested time and money into making my home and my back yard my oasis and I did all of this with the existing layout of the houses surrounding me and with consideration for my neighbours. When the property at 67 Nelson was purchased, due to the death of the original property owner, I was content to know that, yes, I would get new neighbours but it would be a single family. Possibly a new build but still only one house and one family. Actually, another family currently does live in the house at 67 Nelson Ave. I have reviewed all of the Supporting Documents listed on the City website and I could provide all of my comments about all that is wrong with the current proposal BUT will simply say this: I am NOT in agreement to the current proposal. This proposal is in no way compatible to the existing neighbourhood and certainly not to the homes that are on Nelson Ave. So where do we go from here? Firstly I would like to thank you for listening and hopefully hearing my concerns. Has the developer provided other options for our community to look at? I would be quite happy if both parcels of land remained R-3 single residential but I am not naive and know that something will change but this first proposal cannot and should not be it. It will be too intrusive to the way of life for the current residents in the area. I will await your response and any instruction for the next step that is to be taken. Tamm La a e Page 387 of 387